www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The license for readme files in the works of ASF projects
Date Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:32:59 GMT
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