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: Wikipedia Content
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2014 00:22:59 GMT
> By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared
under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.

 

So what's wrong with that? Every customer of general purpose FOSS applications software that
includes Linux, Android, Apache server, Hadoop, and the like, is already accepting that kind
of licensing complexity! 

 

It isn't even complexity. Both Apache and CC-SA licenses are completely satisfied by publishing
licensing notices and pointing to the original source code. Everyone should already be doing
that.

 

/Larry

 

From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:48 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content

 

By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared
under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.

 

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> 
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content

 

Ross Gardler wrote:

> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection

> under this license need to be shared under the same license.

 

No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread
the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license
is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.

 

And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA
work all by itself, if any Apache downstream user would like to unbury it.

 

> ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand

> the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA)

> versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License

> or similar)

 

Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety
of FOSS components in their software. Almost all respectable distributors and users of FOSS
(and commercial) software nowadays require merely disclosure of all FOSS components and a
list of all licenses that apply (including CC-SA and Apache). Those downstream users are perfectly
able and willing to comply with all those FOSS licenses that are disclosed. [1]  And with
the source code they can make their own use and redistribution decisions.

 

The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few
lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing
commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't
take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't
really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains
in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.

 

Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.

 

/Larry

 

[1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm),
Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing
the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS
workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak
about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For
further information, see  <http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810>
http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
 

 

 

 

From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> ; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
<mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com> 
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content

 

SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this
license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the
Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to
keep things simple for our users.

 

Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the
Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.

 

I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want
our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit
to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software
License or similar).

 

Ross

 

From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> 
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content

 

Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference
to CC-SA. 

 

Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides
that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose
of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with
early GPL language!

 

The following definitions in CC-SA are important:

a.     "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing
works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations
of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations
or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any
form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection
will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of
doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of
the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation
for the purpose of this License.

b.    "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias
and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter
other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement
of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its
entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting
separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective
whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined
below) for the purposes of this License.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org> 
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content

 

If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed
a very strong copyleft license to me.

 

Hen

On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is <mailto:luis@lu.is> > wrote:

653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.

Luis

 

[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex <http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia>
&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

 

On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');>
> wrote:

For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors,
or?

 

paul

 

On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');>
> wrote:

 

I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g.
your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet
the attribution requirements.

 

 


Mime
View raw message