www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: The license for readme files in the works of ASF projects
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:26:24 GMT
Greg Stein wrote on 9/16/16 5:14 PM:
> Everything developed by the ASF needs to use the ALv2. I'm not even sure
> why you're asking this question.

Indeed, this is clearly documented as required policy, even if the
documentation does not specifically mention README, docs, and other
non-"software".  But the clear intent is that all IP created by an
Apache project is licensed under the ALv2.

  http://apache.org/licenses/#distributions
  http://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing
  http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#licenses

Obviously external bits of software included in Apache project releases
also maintain their original LICENSE, and need to be NOTICEd.

> Yes, it covers READMEs, documentation, images, and other non-code
> assets. Third parties can use those items in their products, or they can
> change them for their products. They fall under the same goal of
> permissive licensing, and that is why we have and use the ALv2.
> 
> People can muck up our code just as much as they can muck up README
> files. We don't care. Let them.
> 
> They just cannot use our *trademarks*, but that is a separate matter.
> The code and the README and the docs and all of that are under
> copyrighted, licensed to third parties under the ALv2.

Trademarks are explicitly excluded from the license grants in ALv2, and
thus all Apache trademark rights are reserved for the ASF on behalf of
all Apache projects:

  http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#trademarks

"6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

If instead your question is about what some *other* organization should
use for their license, that's out of scope for this list.

- Shane

> 
> -g
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com
> <mailto:pierre.smits@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     True that is the policy. Regarding the code. But that policy is more
>     than just about use, But also about enabling modifications. Hence
>     the license validating that. 
>     Yet there is also the protection of descriptive elements of the
>     projects and other stuff (think the Apache feather at ASF level) to
>     consider.. 
> 
>     So I would say the AL2 license is not the most appropriate one when
>     projects want to restrict modification of certain artefacts. And
>     readme files describing the product could be one of those, so that
>     the project can control that changes to such files go through the
>     project, in stead of any 3rd party changing it willy-nilly in their
>     favor (and potentially damaging the reputation of he project or the
>     ASF).
> 
>     So what would the appropriate license be, in such cases?
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
>     Pierre Smits
> 
>     ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>     OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
>     OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>     http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
>     On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com
>     <mailto:gstein@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>         Well, now you're actually asking a *policy* question rather than
>         a legal question.
> 
>         Regarding policy: that is absolutely what the Apache Software
>         Foundation wants to see. We made code available, and they used
>         it, ... AND they renamed stuff to not abuse our "Apache"
>         trademark. The ALv2 basically says "use the code, not our
>         trademarks".
> 
>         We want people to use our code. We don't need recognition for it.
> 
>         Cheers,
>         -g
> 
> 
>         On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Pierre Smits
>         <pierre.smits@gmail.com <mailto:pierre.smits@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>             Thanks for the enlightenment of the change-over from ASL to
>             AL, Greg...
> 
>             For the rest, the answer doesn't do the question justice.
> 
>             Let me explain this with following hypothetical example:
> 
>             Apache HTTPServer (not to be confused with Apache HTTPD ;-))
>             is available for forking through Github (you can find it
>             here: http://github/apache/apacheserver
>             <http://github/apache/apacheserver> with a readme file (with
>             a AL2 header included). This hypothetical readme contains
>             one single line stating: 'The Apache HTTPServer(r) is the
>             product of the same named open source community under the
>             umbrella of the Apache Software Foundation and delivers a
>             fast and flexible web server solution'. 
> 
>             Together with a hypothetical logo and the name (a registered
>             trademark) this readme strenghtens the brand of the product,
>             the project and the foundation. 
> 
>             Now, the repo is forked to a same named repo but in an other
>             account (lets say http://github/foo/apacheserver) and the
>             content (except the license header) is transformed into:
> 
>             This product delivers a solution to produce web pages, is
>             based on the concepts in nginEx and is the result of the
>             works of Wiley E. Coyote and Sylvester T. Cat of Acme Corp. 
> 
>             Though in line with the AL2 (ability to modify the
>             artefact), the displayed result delivers a negative effect
>             with respect to brand recognition/reinformcement. Hence my
>             question: is in such a case the AL2 license the right one
>             for that particular artefact?
> 
>             Best regards,
> 
> 
>             Pierre Smits
> 
>             ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>             OFBiz based solutions & services
> 
>             OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>             http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> 
>             On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Greg Stein
>             <gstein@gmail.com <mailto:gstein@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>                 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Pierre Smits
>                 <pierre.smits@gmail.com <mailto:pierre.smits@gmail.com>>
>                 wrote:
> 
>                     Hi all,
> 
>                     Our ASL 2 license allows changes in the artefact
>                     that is governed by that license.
> 
>                     But is that the right license for readme files and
>                     other similar artifacts enclosed in our releases?
> 
> 
>                 There is no "ASL 2" license. There *is* an Apache
>                 License v2.0 ... we dropped the "S[oftware]" when going
>                 to v2 with the specific intent that it can be applied to
>                 things like README files and documentation. That it
>                 isn't just about code.
> 
>                 Cheers,
>                 -g
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message