www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The license for readme files in the works of ASF projects
Date Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:07:43 GMT
Like Shane explained: there are exceptions.

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

>
> The counterpoint is that your question does not compute with the Apache
> philosophy. Apache's philosophy is that an artifact's content may be
> modified by a third party (but not subsequently passed off as being an
> original from Apache). We don't do "third party can't modify".
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greg, Shane and Alex,
>>
>> It seems you're missing the point. Which license is to be preferred when
>> a project doesn't want 3rd parties to change content of a particular
>> artefact?
>>
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
>> OFBiz based solutions & services
>>
>> OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
>> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:26 AM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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