www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy
Date Mon, 18 May 2015 18:13:57 GMT
Geir Magnusson asked:
> 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?

No. I specifically identified FOSS software. OSI and FSF and Creative
Commons are perfectly capable of identifying such FOSS licenses without us
needing a complicated list created by our own VP of Legal based on mystical
categories and individual JIRA requests. By the way, our downstream users
can still do that commercial stuff if they want to!

> Being able to create and distribute derivative works is one of the things
that
> IMO makes open source so magical.

Every FOSS license allows the creation of derivative works!  Magical indeed!
:-)

FOSS is never a land mine!  

As a reminder, this is how we should define FOSS for Apache:

.	Use Apache software for any purpose.
.	Make and distribute copies.
.	Create and distribute derivative works.
.	Access and use the source code.
.	Combine Apache and other software.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 10:52 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy

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