Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C6B5181DC for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 46246 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2015 19:36:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 46062 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2015 19:36:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 46051 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2015 19:36:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:36:34 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 02966D9EF4 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 5.143 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.143 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_MSGID_YAHOO=2.244, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fuqJLlNw8xIH for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id A465A251D5 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeh16 with SMTP id h16so95816516qge.3 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=ILPXd7qN5m7hde4UNPvtaDn33s5fW/e/cm/PDNl53H0=; b=01KeQQ73qNpgJ7Cu+1i/0+DOrLrYYWrO0gMG8hvaPQLmbzmgBTrXmrxUZ1Ro0VOLml x4lCW4QHnhYTSdh4xQiLrooOS6uyB7FaAFpRyZjrd0m2DR+s5N3wYT67ntvIZNy9cPyO D9zooM0VNh7SPCvYIKuwNm2K8r0ZdFHl+U+9sjGXgHqMDi1ijnEdKWZ84JcGzQ3cmzbD 14g2sqNqHbXWdR8Ulimn2SzC4ABHbUuwZYoC7OI6ROBgd8HD/FN08c5ZoQ8v2A5mtXO7 jjdqNlfufE+w1NVXJRZgGvXBU7F3ThVxouySNuJ7qZDZMwXmaeExnhoByVqarmua0VrY NlHw== X-Received: by 10.140.88.163 with SMTP id t32mr26883539qgd.92.1438630532292; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (h-68-166-236-215.cmbr.ma.dynamic.megapath.net. [68.166.236.215]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e104sm7373624qgd.29.2015.08.03.12.35.29 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) From: David Jencks X-Google-Original-From: David Jencks Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C7FA72E-1EEE-402F-B8C1-3E7716697EA0" Message-Id: <4A897A45-E205-4A61-B144-06AAC156A7AA@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:35:28 -0400 References: <09c801d0cd7b$53a220b0$fae66210$@rosenlaw.com> <09da01d0cd88$9da8dc00$d8fa9400$@rosenlaw.com> <09e301d0cd8d$d2253140$766f93c0$@rosenlaw.com> <09ec01d0cd97$2ff670a0$8fe351e0$@rosenlaw.com> <09ed01d0cd9c$1b4e1a40$51ea4ec0$@rosenlaw.com> <0a6c01d0cdfe$1406ed90$3c14c8b0$@rosenlaw.com> <0aae01d0ce12$213885f0$63a991d0$@rosenlaw.com> <5233EDA4-3B52-4743-A2A4-3A7D42FC1CAD@dslextreme.com> <0aed01d0ce21$cb5fa4f0$621eeed0$@rosenlaw.com> To: legal-discuss@apache.org, lrosen@rosenlaw.com In-Reply-To: <0aed01d0ce21$cb5fa4f0$621eeed0$@rosenlaw.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098) --Apple-Mail=_8C7FA72E-1EEE-402F-B8C1-3E7716697EA0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I have no idea what you mean for one or more =E2=80=9Ccompanies=E2=80=9D = to =E2=80=9Cspeak up=E2=80=9D. Do you expect a communication from the = marketing department? IBM certainly uses mozilla licensed code for some purposes. I attempted = to explain how having MPL licensed source code available from apache = would thwart IBM=E2=80=99s ability to use modify apache projects and = release them as closed source, and Sam attempted to clarify some of your = misunderstandings. Please go back and study what we wrote until you get = the point. thanks david jencks > On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lawrence Rosen = wrote: >=20 > Ralph Goers seriously wrote: > > One of the things the ASF cares about is what companies that > > develop proprietary software are allowed to do with the code > > we develop. =20 > =20 > Me too! Let's hear from them directly here at = legal-discuss@apache.org . I suppose we = should ask only those companies that are not members of Eclipse or Linux = Foundations, or who don't use Mozilla products throughout their = companies. > =20 > This is a public list. Companies should speak up! Is anyone here = reluctant to accept Eclipse or Linux or Mozilla products in Apache = software? > =20 > Or Creative Commons works? > =20 > /Larry > =20 > =20 > From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]=20 > Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 11:02 AM > To: Legal Discuss ; Lawrence Rosen = > Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses > =20 > The fact that you still haven=E2=80=99t answered the questions that = were asked by Sam speaks volumes to me. The answer you gave tries to = sidestep the questions, not answer them. > =20 > No one is arguing with you about the ability for open source licenses = to be combined. We do seem to differ on what the consequences are to ALL = the downstream users of our software. > =20 > One of the things the ASF cares about is what companies that develop = proprietary software are allowed to do with the code we develop. In = short, we want them to be able to do anything they want with only the = restrictions that are placed on them by the Apache license (which is = almost nothing). They cannot be required to publish any changes they = have made to any of the software they are incorporating into their = product, be required to give back those changes to the appropriate = software project, or anything else beyond acknowledging that they use = the software in their product. This is a large reason why projects = choose to use the Apache license and call the ASF their home. > =20 > For some reason you choose to avoid discussing this. > =20 > Ralph > =20 >> On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Lawrence Rosen > wrote: >> =20 >> +1 to some of what Alex Harui wrote (copied below). It is very = helpful to understand the opinions of many Apache members represented by = his words. I don't like repeating myself either. >> =20 >> The reasons that there are so many FOSS licenses is mostly because of = other things (patents, defensive termination, "corresponding source," = the scale of attribution conditions, warranties, static linking, DRM = prohibitions) than what Sam is asking about. At least, I think so. = Sometimes Sam's questions here go wildly into complex, multi-layered = hypotheticals that can be boiled down to asking about whether companies = like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc., are free to copy and create = derivative works of all Apache products even under proprietary licenses. = The answer is always YES as long as the components =E2=80=93 including = the ALv2 components =E2=80=93 are and remain FOSS. Nobody is allowed to = change that. Read our license and our attribution notices and our source = code archives. --Apple-Mail=_8C7FA72E-1EEE-402F-B8C1-3E7716697EA0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 I have no idea what you mean for one or more =E2=80=9Ccompanies= =E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cspeak up=E2=80=9D.  Do you expect a = communication from the marketing department?

IBM certainly uses mozilla licensed = code for some purposes.  I attempted to explain how having MPL = licensed source code available from apache would thwart IBM=E2=80=99s = ability to use modify apache projects and release them as closed source, = and Sam attempted to clarify some of your misunderstandings. =  Please go back and study what we wrote until you get the = point.

thanks
david jencks



On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>= wrote:

Ralph Goers = seriously wrote:
> One of the things = the ASF cares about is what companies that
> develop proprietary software are = allowed to do with the code
> we develop.  
 
Me = too!  Let's hear from them directly here at legal-discuss@apache.org. I = suppose we should ask only those companies that are not members of = Eclipse or Linux Foundations, or who don't use Mozilla products = throughout their companies.
 
This is a public list. Companies should = speak up! Is anyone here reluctant to accept Eclipse or Linux or Mozilla = products in Apache software?
 
Or Creative Commons works?
 
/Larry
 
 
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 = 11:02 AM
To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS = licenses
 
The fact that you still haven=E2=80=99t answered the = questions that were asked by Sam speaks volumes to me.  The answer = you gave tries to sidestep the questions, not answer them.
 
No one is = arguing with you about the ability for open source licenses to be = combined. We do seem to differ on what the consequences are to ALL the = downstream users of our software.
 
One of the things the ASF cares about is what = companies that develop proprietary software are allowed to do with the = code we develop.  In short, we want them to be able to do anything = they want with only the restrictions that are placed on them by the = Apache license (which is almost nothing).  They cannot be required = to publish any changes they have made to any of the software they are = incorporating into their product, be required to give back those changes = to the appropriate software project, or anything else beyond = acknowledging that they use the software in their product.  This is = a large reason why projects choose to use the Apache license and call = the ASF their home.
 
For some reason you choose to avoid discussing = this.
 
Ralph
 
On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> = wrote:
 
+1 to some of = what Alex Harui wrote (copied below). It is very helpful to understand = the opinions of many Apache members represented by his words. I don't = like repeating myself either.
 
The reasons that there are so many FOSS licenses is mostly = because of other things (patents, defensive termination, "corresponding = source," the scale of attribution conditions, warranties, static = linking, DRM prohibitions) than what Sam is asking about. At least, I = think so. Sometimes Sam's questions here go wildly into complex, = multi-layered hypotheticals that can be boiled down to asking about = whether companies like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc., are free to = copy and create derivative works of all Apache products even under = proprietary licenses.  The answer is = always YES as long as the components =E2=80=93 including the ALv2 = components =E2=80=93 are and remain FOSS. Nobody is allowed to change = that. Read our license and our attribution notices and our source code = archives.

= --Apple-Mail=_8C7FA72E-1EEE-402F-B8C1-3E7716697EA0--