www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The license for readme files in the works of ASF projects
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2016 21:14:19 GMT
Everything developed by the ASF needs to use the ALv2. I'm not even sure
why you're asking this question.

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.


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>

> 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> 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>
>> 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 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> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Pierre Smits <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

View raw message