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 Mon, 09 Dec 2013 02:10:36 GMT
Jeff Thompson wrote:
> I'm happy we put that issue to bed.

 

Jeff, please don't exaggerate. Unfortunately we didn't put anything
important to bed except the conclusion that GPL-licensed works MUST BE
DISCLOSED. You still refuse to treat Apache works with the same respect for
its license as we give to the GPL. 

 

As Richard Fontana keeps pointing out, we are also stymied apparently
because IBM negotiated certain private deals in the past with its customers,
and that is interfering with Apache's ability to decide for itself which
FOSS contributions we may accept in the future for /our/ projects. You want
your commercial needs to override our technical decisions.

 

The fact that most other distributors of FOSS software, including everyone I
know who distributes Linux, are more diligent in their disclosures, should
alert you to your problem. Most FOSS licenses require the posting of notices
and the disclosure of FOSS license terms, even those licenses that don't
require the posting of source code - even the Apache License 2.0.

 

We can't keep ignoring the fact that IBM may not be honoring Apache License
section 4. In particular, you say that you don't have to disclose the
application of the Apache License to software originally obtain from ASF (AL
section 4(a) requires that!). And furthermore, if we choose to include
components from third parties, you insist that you don't have to disclose
those contributions.

 

I find your conclusion particularly remarkable because the words of the
Apache License are so clear in section 4. And IBM attorneys were the ones
who most contributed to the drafting of that license. Why are you now
interpreting those provisions out of the license?

 

I know that certain folks here want this discussion to be limited to one
license (CC-BY) that we're not now certain any Apache project yet needs, but
the problem you have highlighted is profound. We need to conclude this issue
one way or the other, on this list or on other lists where more FOSS
attorneys will participate in the discussion. But we obviously can't let IBM
alone dictate the ways that the Apache License must be honored.

 

Best regards,

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

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

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

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

 

From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 5:35 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: New versions of CC licenses

 

"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/07/2013 04:50:44 PM:

> Jeff Thompson wrote:
> > I am saying, as between B and C, if they've agreed to exchange the
> code under the GPL, as between those two, that's the license.  
>  
> I agree with that. 

Great.  I'm happy we put that issue to bed.

>                     So also if Red Hat takes software from the Linux 
> Foundation under the GPL and agrees with its customers to make that 
> available under a commercial license, then as between them the 
> commercial license is the deal.

Don't agree with you on that one, but as you point out, that's an issue
between RH and the Linux contributors.  As I read the GPL, there are terms
that say you have to pass on the GPL code under the GPL terms and no other
license, so the analogy between that an the AL2.0 fails.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group


Mime
View raw message