www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 17:51:42 GMT
why would we want to plant this land mine?  Being able to create and distribute derivative
works is one of the things that IMO makes open source so magical.

Thought experiment - would you advocate including as core functionality non-open commercial
software under a free-as-in-beer license  as long as it was noted as such in the NOTICE file?

geir

> On May 18, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> [Going back to main topic :-) Was briefly "Reciprocity and Copyleft"]
> 
> Jukka Zitting noted:
>> I'm more worried about the "for informational purposes only" part, 
>> and the mixed messaging we're already giving out by suggesting that 
>> the NOTICE file has or should have a role beyond the one stated in 4d.
> 
> Most downstream users (99.9% of AOO users, for example) will be able to ignore entirely
the NOTICE file because they won't create and distribute derivative works for which they might
have a reciprocity obligation. Our NOTICE file satisfies almost everyone's FOSS licensing
requirements completely even by being unread.
> 
> As for the few distributors of derivative works who should worry about such things, I'm
not their lawyer and so all I can do is provide a NOTICE file "for informational purposes
only." They are mature and sophisticated, and their own attorneys can warn them about "derivative
works" of free software. 
> 
> Apache License 2.0 is without warranty in that respect. I quote from ALv2, section 7:
> 
> Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS
IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including,
without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY,
or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness
of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of
permissions under this License.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:16 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: Reciprocity and Copyleft (Was: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2015-05-18 12:41 GMT-04:00 Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>:
>> So it is ALWAYS a true statement that this proposed Apache Third Party 
>> License Policy DOES NOT MODIFY THE LICENSE. (ALv2, 4d)  In fact, it doesn't modify
ANY license. It can't.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I'm more worried about the "for informational purposes only" part, and the mixed messaging
we're already giving out by suggesting that the NOTICE file has or should have a role beyond
the one stated in 4d.
> 
> BR,
> 
> Jukka Zitting
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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