www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Wikipedia Content
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2014 21:58:51 GMT
Thanks Jim, 

Maybe those first two paragraphs should get copied into the legal-resolved
page.

Now can I get someone like you to decide on the specific Apache Flex
scenario?  The legal-resolved page says that “unmodified media” is ok.
Flex copied text from a wikipedia page into one of its source files where
it is displayed in a UI.  We updated LICENSE and NOTICE.

Do we need to make changes?
-Alex

On 12/4/14, 1:41 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>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
>


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

Mime
View raw message