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 A38B410BED for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14446 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2013 14:24:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 14290 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2013 14:24:34 -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 14283 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2013 14:24:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:24:33 +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 209.85.219.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.50] (HELO mail-oa0-f50.google.com) (209.85.219.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:24:27 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n16so3879178oag.37 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:24:06 -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=LBRyEQ6Za9yYGz9z7aEJfunVgGhSMnetgrmyfohEWnQ=; b=k6zEn9M8nKGrnDTDqt3LgbczkTdnmWy1i3AN9NRwG0eCWQ/Op9T4T+EcruPydIZQtr KUa7CujLti0ah/hdGr3AUrvAT6fHdPE3NYOHjjt/Iqzzson9wnVzx155C3FGj8WO+VL1 Qwt6vlSJ1iYu29x5/WPotw1JWuWrx4Uw4kL9Hs21oSaYzYqS/cr7AEBiQ168OtlQyFyI f0eTM4iJzhv8sgArzsEi949lGFngdQparrzKuxoJvkURVuHhJnRdz/kS2wD0gT+7WKlY W9iPJozu9iGxVEpRwyXsCiI5sOJASG0NPTEX+tsq1T9v+ffGYEAALrqdLKEOolg2+SGO lGLw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.112.130 with SMTP id iq2mr2720044obb.57.1386599046480; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:24:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.102.208 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:24:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1C37CB0D-176F-4966-8609-DD5B5E1C7402@jaguNET.com> References: <20131205213047.GG26699@redhat.com> <057101cef2c2$34e4cc30$9eae6490$@rosenlaw.com> <20131206213957.GA8679@redhat.com> <20131207055422.GA5091@redhat.com> <1C37CB0D-176F-4966-8609-DD5B5E1C7402@jaguNET.com> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:24:06 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: zhbuymreM3UBpCAKZikuy_lzIAw Message-ID: Subject: Re: New versions of CC licenses From: Sam Ruby To: Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229a069c8a1904ed1abf9e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e01229a069c8a1904ed1abf9e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote: > > > > I understand, but Apache's policy of public offers doesn't change the > law of copyright licensing. > > I understand that, but I'm still now sure where and how this > affects us, the ASF. If this whole discussion is based on > actions or policies that the ASF doesn't take part in, then > I fail to see how this is an ASF issue. > One way to resolve this discussion would be to recognize that we don't have consensus and remove Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and 3.0 (commonly referred to as either CC-A or CC-BY) from the Previously Asked Questions page[1] entirely. I suggest that we will have a much easier time dealing with specific questions like whether or not a specific PMC can ship a specific slide deck that is licensed under CC-BY as accompanying documentation for their project. - Sam Ruby [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html --089e01229a069c8a1904ed1abf9e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On M= on, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wr= ote:

On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I understand, but Apache's policy of public offers doesn't cha= nge the law of copyright licensing.

I understand that, but I'm still now sure where and how this
affects us, the ASF. If this whole discussion is based on
actions or policies that the ASF doesn't take part in, then
I fail to see how this is an ASF issue.

One way to resolve this discussion would be to recognize that we don'= t have consensus and remove Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and 3.0 (commonly referred to= as either CC-A or CC-BY) from the Previously Asked Questions page[1] entir= ely.

I suggest that we will have a much eas= ier time dealing with specific questions like whether or not a specific PMC= can ship a specific slide deck that is licensed under CC-BY as accompanyin= g documentation for their project.

- Sam= Ruby

[1] http= ://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
--089e01229a069c8a1904ed1abf9e--