Apache licence and derivated work

[Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I would know what has to be written on a derivated *documentation* work
(modified or translated) based on an original work published with an Apache
licence.

I suppose :

#1. The title of the derivated document has to be different.

#2. The author of the modified version has to add its own copyright notice.

#3. The licence of the derivated work has to be obligatory the Apache
licence or not ?

#4. If yes in #3, the APPENDIX: "How to apply the Apache License to your
work" has to be added to the derivated work.

#5. Has the author of the derivated work to write a notice giving credit to
the author(s) and contributor(s) of the original version on which he has
based his work ? Is a link to the original work obligatory or not ?

Regards

-- 

gw

Re: Apache licence and derivated work

[Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>]

Hi Rob,

2013/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>

>
> OK.  So this is entirely 3rd party and Apache policy does not apply.
>
> Section 4 of the ALv2 explains what is required by someone who
> modifies and redistributes a work under Apache license:
>
[...]

Many thanks for your answer, it's more clear for me now.
Regards
-- 
gw

Re: Apache licence and derivated work

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> 2013/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I would know what has to be written on a derivated *documentation* work
>> > (modified or translated) based on an original work published with an
>> Apache
>> > licence.
>> >
>>
>> Is the original work a work published by an Apache project?  Or is it
>> a 3rd party work from outside Apache that you are modifying?
>>
>> And is the destination of the modified work for publication by this
>> project?  Or is it for independent publication outside of the project.
>>
>> (In other words, where is it coming from and where is it going?)
>>
>> Although the license is the same in these cases, there are differences
>> in Apache policy.  If you can give more details we can give a more
>> specific answer.
>>
> Many thanks for your answer. Here are some clarifications.
> It concerns my own docs,  published with an ALV2 license. I could have the
> opportunity to work on it with a  group, a little as ODFAuthors do. So, the
> different chapters would be released with a list of authors/contributors
> and the copyright name would be the name of the group. The licence is still
> ALv2.0.
> I would insert a notice in the files, with clear instructions for third
> parties (companies, schools, administrations, editors, etc.) which would
> reuse and modify the work, so that they know exactly how  to do,  if they
> modify the work  to fit it to their own specific needs and distribute it on
> their own Intranet or in a printed version. I would avoid to receive too
> much questions, and would try to solve this issue in a clear notice
> explaining the procedure.
> It's also important for people who will join to this effort of
> documentation. I think they have the right to understand clearly how the
> work they will produce could be reused to decide whether they participate
> or not.
>

OK.  So this is entirely 3rd party and Apache policy does not apply.

Section 4 of the ALv2 explains what is required by someone who
modifies and redistributes a work under Apache license:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

That is the official requirement.   But let's look at your specific
questions now and see how this applies:

#1. The title of the derivated document has to be different.

Section 4b of the license says: "You must cause any modified files to
carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files".

Changing the title could be part of that.  But the license does not
specify the exact way in which you indicate that you changed the
files.

#2. The author of the modified version has to add its own copyright notice.

This is also not required.  The only requirement is to preserve any
copyright notices that are already there.

Section 4c of  the license: "You must retain, in the Source form of
any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent,
trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
Derivative Works; "


#3. The licence of the derivated work has to be obligatory the Apache
licence or not ?

I'd encourage using the Apache license for derived works, but it is
not required.  Section 4 of the license says (with my emphasis):

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
***may provide additional or different license terms*** and conditions
for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for
any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided ***Your use,
reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the
conditions stated in this License***. "

So you may apply a different license provided it is compatible with
the Apache License.  But in most cases it is simplest just to use the
Apache License.

#4. If yes in #3, the APPENDIX: "How to apply the Apache License to your
work" has to be added to the derivated work.

Section 4a of the license says that you must include a copy of the
license, so that would include the Appendix as well.

#5. Has the author of the derivated work to write a notice giving credit to
the author(s) and contributor(s) of the original version on which he has
based his work ? Is a link to the original work obligatory or not ?

If the original work had a copyright statement, then that must be
preserved.  If the original version had a NOTICE text file (see
section 4d of the license) then that must be preserved.

You can see the NOTICE file for AOO itself here, to get an idea of
what kinds of things are in it:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk/main/NOTICE

In any case, you should probably decide whether you are looking for
"hard" legal constraints on what people do with the documentation, or
"soft" social norming that guides them to reasonable behavior.  For
example, if you had a page in the documentation that listed the
contributors and invited authors of derived versions to add their
names, to change the title, and to link back to the original version,
I bet most would comply, even though it is not a legal requirement.

Regards,

-Rob


> Regards
> --
> gw
>
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Apache licence and derivated work

[Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>]

Hi Rob,

2013/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>

> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would know what has to be written on a derivated *documentation* work
> > (modified or translated) based on an original work published with an
> Apache
> > licence.
> >
>
> Is the original work a work published by an Apache project?  Or is it
> a 3rd party work from outside Apache that you are modifying?
>
> And is the destination of the modified work for publication by this
> project?  Or is it for independent publication outside of the project.
>
> (In other words, where is it coming from and where is it going?)
>
> Although the license is the same in these cases, there are differences
> in Apache policy.  If you can give more details we can give a more
> specific answer.
>
Many thanks for your answer. Here are some clarifications.
It concerns my own docs,  published with an ALV2 license. I could have the
opportunity to work on it with a  group, a little as ODFAuthors do. So, the
different chapters would be released with a list of authors/contributors
and the copyright name would be the name of the group. The licence is still
ALv2.0.
I would insert a notice in the files, with clear instructions for third
parties (companies, schools, administrations, editors, etc.) which would
reuse and modify the work, so that they know exactly how  to do,  if they
modify the work  to fit it to their own specific needs and distribute it on
their own Intranet or in a printed version. I would avoid to receive too
much questions, and would try to solve this issue in a clear notice
explaining the procedure.
It's also important for people who will join to this effort of
documentation. I think they have the right to understand clearly how the
work they will produce could be reused to decide whether they participate
or not.

Regards
-- 
gw

>
>

Re: Apache licence and derivated work

[Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would know what has to be written on a derivated *documentation* work
> (modified or translated) based on an original work published with an Apache
> licence.
>

Is the original work a work published by an Apache project?  Or is it
a 3rd party work from outside Apache that you are modifying?

And is the destination of the modified work for publication by this
project?  Or is it for independent publication outside of the project.

(In other words, where is it coming from and where is it going?)

Although the license is the same in these cases, there are differences
in Apache policy.  If you can give more details we can give a more
specific answer.

Regards,

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org