www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Wikipedia Content
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2014 22:16:15 GMT
+1, the first 2 paragraphs from Jim’s email need to be documented
great advice and guidance.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>,
"lrosen@rosenlaw.com" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content

>Thanks Jim, 
>Maybe those first two paragraphs should get copied into the legal-resolved
>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?
>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
>>> 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
>>> 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

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

View raw message