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: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses
Date Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:22:56 GMT
My observation was only that it's not clear if this is the position of the AOO PMC as a whole,
or the position of an individual. From the ASF perspective I think the goal is to make it
clear it’s not an ASF position (which current wording does).

Ross

Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:rob@robweir.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:15 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Rob and Andrea,
>
> As VP legal it's Jim's call if this is sufficient. This is much clearer than the earlier
statement, but it still doesn't " *clearly* state[d] that the page is the viewpoint either
of the AOO PMC itself (and only the PMC) or a specific individual" as Jim requested.
>

If Jim wants to suggest specific language, that would be great.  Is the intent to disclaim,
disparage, denounce, attribute, perhaps a mix?

Depending on its generality it make sense, from an engineering perspective, to just put it
on the footer for every page in the domain.  Maybe recommend it for all TLPs.  As far as I
know the content on all TLP websites is controlled by the respective PMCs, with
specific content coming from members of their communities.   With
OpenOffice we tend to follow an "ego-less" style and don't put specific authorship attributions
on individual pages.

> At least one member of the PMC has expressed concern (that's a discussion for the PMC
though, not legal-discuss).
>
> On an entirely personal note I think the new statement actually detracts from the message
and the debate it tries to highlight. The ASF does take a position on recommended license.
We recommend the Apache License as we believe it is "an open and pragmatic software license"
- it's even on our home page: " The Apache projects are defined by collaborative consensus
based processes, an open, pragmatic software license and a desire to create high quality software
that leads the way in its field." I'm not saying you need to include a reference like this,
it's just an observation.
>

I think that was the purpose of Andrea's "not necessarily" wording.
This is conventional language in disclaimers that addresses this very concern.  You want to
say that some authority neither agrees nor disagrees with the content.  It is a bit fragile
to say anything more definite, since the content of the page can change over time, as well
as the contributors.

I'm hoping we can also avoid such constructs as "This page is not endorsed by the ASF , the
Committee on Political Correctness nor by the Lord High Grammarian".  This would be nonsense
since we do not have a Committee on Political Correctness, a Lord High Grammarian, nor do
we have a process for getting TLP pages "endorsed by the ASF", nor has such endorsement been
requested.

> Jim, do you think we should get that slide corrected. I'd hate for that to be repeated
too many times. I'm sure we have many contributors who would take exception to it.
>

+1.   In case this is an accidental misunderstanding of how the ASF
expresses official views, it might be worth drawing his attention to the ASF blog and the
"foundation" pages at www.apache.org

Regards,

-Rob

> Ross
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:rob@robweir.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 7:54 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>> "not necessarily" is not correct. We do not endorse these views as a 
>> foundation. Full stop.
>>
>
> Updated with a paraphrase of this:
>
> "The Apache Software Foundation does not take a position, recommend or advise the use
or non-use of any particular software license or family of licenses."
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>
>> There are plenty of people who do, but the foundation does not take 
>> positions on these things.
>>
>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: Andrea Pescetti
>> Sent: β€Ž1/β€Ž28/β€Ž2015 5:34 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Apache Foundation position on copyleft licenses
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> HOWEVER, the POV expressed does NOT reflect the POV of the ASF 
>>> itself, and so it must be *clearly* stated that the page is the 
>>> viewpoint either of the AOO PMC itself (and only the PMC) or a 
>>> specific individual.
>>> Please make the required changes asap.
>>
>> I've added a disclaimer to the page, at the end of 
>> http://www.openoffice.org/why/why_compliance.html
>>
>> It's not what you asked for, but it does clarify that the ASF does 
>> not necessarily endorse views expressed there. In this way it can 
>> stay even if the page is rewritten using a different tone (something 
>> I've proposed to do a long time ago, for the record).
>>
>> Deleting the page as suggested by Henri is not an option. That page 
>> has value for users who may legitimately wonder about differences 
>> with respect to proprietary and copyleft software respectively.
>>
>> Now, if the first result on search engines for "ASF position copyleft"
>> led to a page where I could see what the ASF position is...
>>
>> I wonder why the e-mail was directed here. The OpenOffice PMC is able 
>> to fix its own website without a discussion on legal-discuss. Anyway, 
>> now that the disclaimer has been added, I see no value in continuing 
>> the legal-discuss thread.
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Andrea.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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