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 18:36:17 GMT
Geir Magnusson wrote:
> And for those that do want to make and distribute a derivative work, 
> the odds are that they'd be better able to negotiate acceptible 
> redistribution terms w/ a commercial entity than a random 
> copyleft-ed FLOSS project.

Geir is right again! And by reading our NOTICE file, those distributors can
figure out who to talk to about that!

> But some [licenses] place unacceptable (to us) restrictions on
distribution.

Nobody at OSI has ever intentionally approved such a license. Perhaps it is
a restriction in your mind only? 

> [Is FOSS a land mine?] When it's hidden?  yes it is.

A NOTICE file is never hidden! 

> You keep dropping important things from your definition [of FOSS] 
> (like terms under which derivative works can be redistributed).

That is ENTIRELY on purpose. Read my book. Then comment.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 11:24 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: Proposal: Apache Third Party License Policy


> On May 18, 2015, at 2:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> 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!

Sure, but why not? As you noted, "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 ..."
an obligation to the commercial entity.

And for those that do want to make and distribute a derivative work, the
odds are that they'd be better able to negotiate acceptible redistribution
terms w/ a commercial entity than a random copyleft-ed FLOSS project.

> 
>> 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!
> :-)

But some place unacceptable (to us) restrictions on distribution.

> 
> FOSS is never a land mine!  

When it's hidden?  yes it is.

> 
> 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.

You keep dropping important things from your definition (like terms under
which derivative works can be redistributed). 

geir

> 
> /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
> 


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


Mime
View raw message