Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F1081025A for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 10:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 84625 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2013 10:25:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 84486 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2013 10:24:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 84464 invoked by uid 99); 7 Dec 2013 10:24:51 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Dec 2013 10:24:51 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.179] (HELO mail-ob0-f179.google.com) (209.85.214.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Dec 2013 10:24:44 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wm4so1891057obc.10 for ; Sat, 07 Dec 2013 02:24:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=TFpM8ZqVhTQsVZQ6sdqxUKd40xCM7CeCikcMcMw3/O0=; b=sNYydjlp80ZEFmwMBp6Hk3hGKZ4/A4B1exuZy5SSy5R/PgvpKBeCG4xvaNr/pYOIgx SFjx2j6CEf6nrgyLnrehXhqq86bSg69Fg8AFGf/bFIHMngRm5lr8bmALENlknb7yF0Nl DuFVMDJ/LdNW66wFdbM/86mOnQ3v1S6hXnQ0w967zobjnsanH/mScxKuPen0pBVQ8lK3 3Mezx7mVGrqAp84Vlqz8rP5QmLRvkLB+ZrxHxQ0O919jV9KCcifRzS+xpIJNei+CBy/g VndnyQ7tGJHw3QthhAXYw5VdUjaKLThtx+pSCcghZOSl0DpjOZ/usO//4gaBdM+lrRhR CUhw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.146.104 with SMTP id tb8mr47827obb.54.1386411863385; Sat, 07 Dec 2013 02:24:23 -0800 (PST) Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.20.135 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 02:24:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131207064829.GB5091@redhat.com> References: <021601cef154$3a33e730$ae9bb590$@rosenlaw.com> <20131205213047.GG26699@redhat.com> <058e01cef2c5$8ae0a3e0$a0a1eba0$@rosenlaw.com> <20131207064829.GB5091@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 05:24:23 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fUmPKfBup7H4MJNMByqmq09pNLU Message-ID: Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses From: Sam Ruby To: Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04451a39a176f104ecef2ab9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d04451a39a176f104ecef2ab9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > So if there is a reason to keep CC BY 4.0 (or, retroactively, earlier > versions of CC BY) out of 'Category A', it should not be for this > reason. > Clearly you and Jeff differ over this. Fair enough. But during the course of this discussion, we have established that there are some licenses that are less restrictive than the Apache License. And some that are more restrictive. And that while the ASF welcomes contributions back, it doesn't require them. In fact, we welcome people to create derivative works and distribute those works under different (specifically: more restrictive) terms. Furthermore, absolutely nobody has taken the position that should this be done that it in any way affects the ability of others to obtain and use the original (unenhanced) version. To facilitate the creation of such derivative works, the ASF makes an attempt to avoid including works that are provided under licenses that are more restrictive than the ASF's own license. CC-By appears to be such a license. Whether or not you agree with Jeff, it is the case that both the Mozilla foundation and the FSF have deemed that CC-BY is incompatible with their licenses. Producing software that is consumable by people that use the latest versions of those licenses is an explicit goal of the ASF. Further reading: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I would suggest that we go ahead and resolve that JIRA at this time. - Sam Ruby --f46d04451a39a176f104ecef2ab9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com&g= t; wrote:
So if there is a reason t= o keep CC BY 4.0 (or, retroactively, earlier
versions of CC BY) out of 'Category A', it should not be for this reason.

Clearly you and Jeff differ ove= r this.=C2=A0 Fair enough.

But during the course of this = discussion, we have established that there are some licenses that are less = restrictive than the Apache License.=C2=A0 And some that are more restricti= ve.=C2=A0 And that while the ASF welcomes contributions back, it doesn'= t require them.=C2=A0 In fact, we welcome people to create derivative works= and distribute those works under different (specifically: more restrictive= ) terms.=C2=A0 Furthermore, absolutely nobody has taken the position that s= hould this be done that it in any way affects the ability of others to obta= in and use the original (unenhanced) version.

To facilitate the creation of such derivative works, the ASF makes an a= ttempt to avoid including works that are provided under licenses that are m= ore restrictive than the ASF's own license.

CC-By app= ears to be such a license.=C2=A0 Whether or not you agree with Jeff, it is = the case that both the Mozilla foundation and the FSF have deemed that CC-B= Y is incompatible with their licenses.=C2=A0 Producing software that is con= sumable by people that use the latest versions of those licenses is an expl= icit goal of the ASF.

Further reading:

https://issues.apache.org/ji= ra/browse/LEGAL-167

I would sug= gest that we go ahead and resolve that JIRA at this time.

- Sam= Ruby
--f46d04451a39a176f104ecef2ab9--