Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:20:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Lawrence Rosen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180.7425.1382808032315@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12671610.1380644655180@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-179) Include CC-BY as an Apache-approved
 third party license
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-179?page=3Dcom.atlassian.=
jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D13806=
142#comment-13806142 ]=20

Lawrence Rosen commented on LEGAL-179:
--------------------------------------

This JIRA LEGAL-179 has been resolved as "not a problem." Many of you are t=
ired of reading about this. Feel free to ignore it. I can lead a horse to w=
ater but I can't force him to drink....  /Larry

***********************

Some of you have treated this JIRA LEGAL-179 issue as a personal vendetta b=
y me to force our VP of Legal Affairs to take action prematurely to approve=
 a new W3C specification license. This isn't personal; this is an important=
 legal issue whether you recognize it or not. However Apache decides to dea=
l with this issue, "not a problem" is the wrong way to describe it.

W3C standards are currently available under the W3C Document License. Why i=
sn't that good enough? Because the ways we write software standards and the=
 ways we implement them have changed even as open source and open standards=
 have evolved! Here is how one attorney at W3C PSIG described the problem r=
ecently when it became obvious that Sam and others didn't really understand=
 the issue:

   "This argument is at the core of a long dispute between Larry Masinter a=
nd
    Ian Hickson. If a specification is just abstract rules for implementati=
on, one
    "uses" the specification to implement code. Masinter argued for such=20
    specifications. But if the pseudo-code and code serves as a specificati=
on
    and as a reference code at the same time, using that code or pseudo-cod=
e,
    transforming it automatically into code and putting it in a new context=
 is generating
    legal problems. Problems that nobody wants, but that interfere with the=
 entire
    development process and standardization."

In particular, one runs afoul of the following condition in the W3C Documen=
t License:

   "No right to create modifications or derivatives of W3C documents is
    granted pursuant to this license."

Ignore this W3C Document License condition at your own risk!=20

I am comfortable that W3C itself won't sue anyone at Apache for copyright i=
nfringement, so that's not the risk. Instead, you should recognize that lar=
ge, powerful software companies such as IBM and Microsoft are worried about=
 the "forking" of industry standards and want to prevent it. It is they =E2=
=80=93 your employers and the owners of much proprietary software =E2=80=93=
 who have insisted that W3C PSIG develop a standards licensing strategy tha=
t both enables open source and derivative works /and/ that prevents forking=
.=20

I don't want standards to be forked! But I do argue that open source princi=
ples require the freedom to create derivative works, even of industry stand=
ards, without asking the permission of any big company!

Here is how that W3C attorney described the process by which, after more th=
an a year of vigorous discussion within W3C PSIG, the CC-BY license came to=
 be the W3C recommendation:

    "Some technician came up with CC-BY and this was too late to stop.
    Then some people realized CC-BY is claimed to be not compatible
     with GPL (I wonder why) and suggested CC-Zero. CC-Zero does not
     even acknowledge authors, which is very objectionable from a droit=20
     d'auteur point of view as it neglects the moral rights."

When the Director of W3C finally adopted CC-BY as an "experiment" for a new=
 license, I supported it. So did the companies represented at PSIG, includi=
ng the companies that employ many of you!=20

I then asked here that we add CC-BY to the list of approved licenses.=20

The s=E2=80=94t then hit the fan here, most of which was unfortunately slun=
g at me. Maybe this email will awaken you to the real story behind the stor=
y you thought you heard.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu=20


> Include CC-BY as an Apache-approved third party license
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-179
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-179
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Lawrence Rosen
>            Assignee: Sam Ruby
>
> W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee has just approved the use of CC-BY as the li=
cense for the HTML Working Group and as an experiment to determine whether =
to use that license for other W3C specifications. Since Apache members part=
icipate in HTML development and use that W3C specification in our projects,=
 we should add CC-BY to the Apache list of approved third-party licenses.
> /Larry
> ********** Here is what the W3C announcement said:
> "Based on extensive discussions, the Director has decided to pursue the e=
xperiment with CC-BY. The Director's view is that:
>    * Despite concerns from some developers that it is not sufficiently
>      liberal, CC-BY satisfies the key requirement of permitting the
>      creation of derivative works.
>    * A license with no attribution requirement, such as CC0, would
>      not support other important W3C and community aims, as it could
>      contribute to confusion rather than interoperability of the Web
>      platform.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org