www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Is GitHub forking subject to clause 4b?
Date Thu, 05 Jan 2017 23:44:06 GMT
On Jan 3, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:07 PM Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>>
wrote:
> No, no, no, no, ...
> 
> -1
> 
> First, this public discussion list is not where we decide to make changes to our legal
FAQ.  We have an internal list for that, managed by our VP, and checked by our lawyers.
> 
> Apologies for suggesting a FAQ change without mentioning what I thought was obvious,
which is that neither I nor this list have the ability to update the FAQ. 
> 
> We don't define what a prominent notice "is", exactly, because it will depend on the
nature of the change. 
> 
> Good to know that was the original intent - I'm generally in favor of making license
requirements reasonable within the context of the changes being made, and this seems like
a good move in that direction.
> 
> That said, it is not obvious how one derives this intent from the text of the license,
since neither the license, nor the dictionary definition of "prominent", ties the required
amount of prominence to the nature of the thing the reader is being notified of. 

The intent is obvious because it is a non-copyleft open source license.

> So, if that's the ASF's intent, it might be a good point to clarify in a FAQ.

FAQs and "clarifications" are essentially changes to the license.
They narrow it in ways that some people might like and others might dislike.
They also provide a means for people to adhere to the examples while not
adhering to the license itself.  Most importantly, they make the effective
license longer than it was before and potentially different from what has
already been agreed to by others. Many, many others.

>>  It can even be accomplished external to the file itself 
> 
> 
> As above, I'm glad to know that's the intent, and I agree with the reasoning. 
> 
> However, as Jim pointed out, that's not obvious from the text of the license, which could
have said that the broader Contribution or modified Work, rather than the specific modified
file, must "carry" the notice. So again I respectfully suggest that if this is the intent
of the ASF, it be clarified in the FAQ.

I guess you think the word "carry" implies inside, which is a bit odd
given that we can carry a cold and carry a laptop (and some of us can
carry a child, in both respects).

>  
> every single term within it that appears to be ambiguous (or broadly undefined) is intended
to be so.
> 
> No legal document ever written contains only intended ambiguity.* Part of what makes
open legal work fruitful (and fun!) is the tradition of writing commentaries to help clarify
ambiguities as we become aware of them.
> 
> HTH-
> Luis
> 
> * My favorite treatise on contract drafting contains multiple entire chapters just on
specific sub-types of ambiguities, and the author's blog contains 2-3 dozen posts more about
ambiguities and court cases stemming from them.

Yes, some ambiguities might lead to conflict, while other ambiguities might
allow parties in conflict to come to an agreement.

....Roy


Mime
View raw message