www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Wikipedia Content
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:41:15 GMT
Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is
that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident
in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
*legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of
said license would cause people to rethink their use of
ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower
to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not
allow said license.

As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve
their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is
for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in
place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
situation where "no legal advice is needed". As you say,
a "yes and no" answer is one we wish to avoid, if in doing
so could cause people to not use ASF resources.

All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions
can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping
us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step
on said toes :)

Cheers! See you next week!

> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> [Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
>  
> Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious
readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: "Is the
CC-SA license GPL-like?"
>  
> Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no." 
>  
> Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of the CC-SA work.
No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the Apache License for the mere incorporation
of that work into a Collection. 
>  
> Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate CC-SA components into
an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also *adapt* such works, but then our *adapted*
versions *of the CC-SA components* must be under CC-BY. 
>  
> As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do not themselves
create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components* distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore
the reciprocity requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each Apache
Collection. 
>  
> To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content under CC-SA would
matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache Collection. Such components are easy
for distributors to remove or leave alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule
the obvious.
>  
> As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have eliminated GPL-like
confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are clearer, less ambiguous, understood around
the world, and do not confuse people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining"
or "baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry for far too long.

>  
> [FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about "linking" with
GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow such GPL components in our Apache
Collections. Of course Apache projects would have to be careful when they create Adaptations
of such works and the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream users
who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses
up today.]
>  
> As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software Foundation both mean
by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely use Creative Commons components.
>  
> /Larry
>  
> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
> "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.
> "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.
> 
>  
> Cc: Creative Commons
>  
>  
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org] 
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
> <snip>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message