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 16:11:44 GMT
Jeff Thompson wrote:

> Larry,
    What conversation have you been following?  If you're going to accuse me
and/or IBM of violating the Apache license, please provide specific
statements that I've made that support those accusations.  If any statements
that I've made have been misconstrued, I'll clarify them.  If you can't
produce any statements that I've made that support your allegations, I
expect a retraction.



 

As long as you honor the requirements of Apache License 2.0, including
section 4, then I will retract. Do you distribute the Apache License, along
with the other licenses listed in our NOTICE files, with every IBM
distribution that includes Apache software? 

 

Since the beginning of FOSS there have been attribution requirements in
licenses. I presume that they are important to most authors. I'd describe
many of those provisions as attempts to accomplish with attribution notices
what trademark law otherwise provides in a far more complicated legal way.
As a result, we have created a hodgepodge of notice rules in the BSD, MIT,
MPL, GPL, AL2, etc., licenses that make consistent procedures difficult to
implement, particularly for commercial vendors. It is a shame that it is so
complicated. But as for the Apache License 2.0, IBM attorneys helped draft
it, so its provisions should not be deemed onerous to IBM.

 

As you point out, CC-BY has its own somewhat unique version of those notice
requirements as well as other provisions designed to protect the reputation
of the author and to guarantee the continuing availability of the published
work. I'm sorry that you didn't consider that license when you drafted IBM's
earlier commercial licenses. But don't exclude the virtues of the CC-BY
license (for some licensors!) simply because you didn't consider all
possible attribution mechanisms when you entered private deals with your
customers.

 

Best regards,

 

/Larry

 

From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 5:22 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: New versions of CC licenses

 

"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/08/2013 09:10:36 PM:

> 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. 

Larry,
    What conversation have you been following?  If you're going to accuse me
and/or IBM of violating the Apache license, please provide specific
statements that I've made that support those accusations.  If any statements
that I've made have been misconstrued, I'll clarify them.  If you can't
produce any statements that I've made that support your allegations, I
expect a retraction.

Jeff
Counsel, IBM Software Group


Mime
View raw message