www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: New versions of CC licenses
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2013 20:31:54 GMT
Sam Ruby asked: > Am I mistaken in my understanding?


As far as that concrete example goes, you're right.


SITUTATION 1: You are describing the situation where Apache /gives/ FOSS works to others who
then distribute them under different licenses. You described our goal correctly for that example,
although this does not mean that diligent downstream distributors shouldn't read our NOTICE
files for potential limitations and risks (e.g., copyright, patent, trademark) associated
with those Apache software products. There may be some risks that downstream distributors
aren't commercially willing to take, which is the reason for our full disclosure policy. 


SITUATION 2: I'm also concerned about properly describing the situation where Apache /takes/
FOSS works of others and then distributes them under the Apache License. We should allow non-Apache
components only when an Apache project can justify it (as for GPL dictionaries in Open Office)
and only when any downstream licensing risks are clearly understood and accepted by the project
PMC itself. Under such a policy, a PMC could accept CC-BY icons that can easily be removed
and replaced by downstream distributors who might not want that risk. It is a situation-specific
analysis that should take place. What can Apache do with such works so that we don't adversely
affect SITUATION 1? 


This is what our Third Party Licensing Policy fails to articulate. We identify licenses by
name rather than understanding the purpose for our projects' use of non-Apache contributions
in specific cases, and without asking relevant questions about the creation of /derivative
works/. So when Eclipse, and Mozilla, and Linux, and many other projects create FOSS software
that they allow us to incorporate into our Apache software, it is foolish to avoid them simply
because some commercial distributor downstream doesn't agree with what our Apache project
wants to do. All our software will be FOSS, and all of it will be collectively under Apache
License 2.0, and customers can take it or leave it or change it, just as you described.




Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile:  <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 


From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:50 AM
To: Legal Discuss; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Sam Ruby wrote:

> It is my understanding that one could take a product released under the Apache License,
Version 2.0, incorporate it into a product, and release the result under the terms of GPL
v3.  I believe that a similar statement can be made concerning MPL v2.  And for various proprietary


That is right. And vice versa (excluding proprietary licenses) as long as by /incorporate/
you don't mean /create and distribute a derivative work/. 


Again, I may have been unclear.


Perhaps a concrete example would help.


I believe that LibreOffice may take the SVG import feature from Apache Open Office, modify
it as they see fit -- thereby creating a derivative work -- and release the result under the
terms of LGPLv3.  Furthermore, they are under no obligation to either contribute this result
back to Apache Open Office, nor are they even required to license the derivative work that
they produced under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0.


For reference:





Am I mistaken in my understanding?


- Sam Ruby

View raw message