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 07:25:40 GMT
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