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 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:31:03 GMT
Sorry for late reply... have been traveling. Will be back
online and avail Friday (the 12th) am. :)

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> +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
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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