www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Wikipedia Content
Date Sat, 29 Nov 2014 22:10:42 GMT
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
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:

  1.  "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.
  2.  "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&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