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 08:30:45 GMT
Greg,

I am not *fighting* this. I am questioning. But, I get your point. Thanks.

Best regards,

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 10:15 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is exasperating ... why are you fighting this. Release all artifacts
> under ALv2. Done.
>
> Why/what are you trying to do otherwise? The Apache philosophy is as Henri
> state: permissive for all released items.
>
> I don't understand why you aren't on board with that, and frankly ... it
> causes me concern.
>
> -g
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not in this case.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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