You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> on 2012/05/23 12:05:31 UTC
MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Hi guys,
We are doing the ground-work for file-by-file, incremental
re-basing of our work on top of the same code release by Oracle under
the Apache License 2.0. Since the overwhelming majority of files in
the Apache OpenOffice incubator repository are un-touched since
checkin (aside from new license headers and some permission fixes) this
should initially be reasonably uncomplicated. As noted ad-nasusem
elsewhere, we plan to do this under the MPLv2 license - more details
here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
As such, we need a new header for source code that makes the
situation clear. We want to get this right, I append the existing
suggestion labelled to aid the discussion, with the hope that it will
conclude in linear time :-)
Our intention would be to include the relevant NOTICE file,
MPLv2 and Apache licenses into our existing source repository and
documentation distributed with the product.
My hope is that the MPLv2 header 'M' and lines 'G' meet the
requirement of a prominent notice that the file is modified.
Those with keen eyesight will notice the removal of the
substantial disclaimer which appears permissible under the AL2 section
4.3. We are eager to have a short, MPLv2-like license header to
improve readability. Both the linked licenses contain this sort of
comprehensive "if it breaks you get two pieces !" language in their
text.
Thanks in advance for your input; maintaining the CC is much
appreciated by those not subscribed to the list :-)
Regards,
Michael.
[ apologies for the re-send, was blocked by moderation it seems =]
/*
C Copyright 2012 LibreOffice contributors.
C
M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
M
G This file incorporates work covered by the following license notice:
G
A Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
A or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
A distributed with this work for additional information
A regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
A to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
A "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
A with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
A
A http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*/
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On May 31, 2012 6:32 AM, "Richard Fontana" <rf...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:42:54PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On May 30, 2012 9:06 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> > >...
> > > I hear
> > > about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
> > > being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
> > > ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
> > > submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
> > > to others under the ALv2.
> >
> > I'm unclear on this aspect, to be honest. Let's just say that I would
> > recommend continuing your contribution statements. (Or even better:
> > collect actual CLAs)
> >
> > I don't think you want to be in a situation where somebody argues a
> > patch to a file licensed under ALv2 by the ASF can be construed as
> > applicable to *our* codebase regardless of the location of that patch.
> [...]
> > If somebody extracts a portion that has none of your derivations, then
> > they might be able to argue we could be the Licensor, and (thus)
> > Contributions fall back to us.
>
> If that were a correct interpretation of ALv2 section 5 it would seem
> to turn ALv2 into a copyleft license. I think there is universal
> agreement that this is not possible. Independent of that, I think it
> is not a correct interpretation of the ALv2 text. But if it *were* a
> correct interpretation, I don't think the general use of
> LibreOffice-style contribution statements or CLAs would alter the
> situation.
Works for me. I agree it's a stretch, and with your advisement ... wrong
:-)
As I said, I am way outta my bounds, and was speculating on worst-case
interpretation. Seems it is nothing to be concerned about.
Thanks for the extra input, Richard.
Cheers,
-g
(*) apply caveats; we know IANAL
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:42:54PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 30, 2012 9:06 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> >...
> > I hear
> > about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
> > being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
> > ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
> > submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
> > to others under the ALv2.
>
> I'm unclear on this aspect, to be honest. Let's just say that I would
> recommend continuing your contribution statements. (Or even better:
> collect actual CLAs)
>
> I don't think you want to be in a situation where somebody argues a
> patch to a file licensed under ALv2 by the ASF can be construed as
> applicable to *our* codebase regardless of the location of that patch.
[...]
> If somebody extracts a portion that has none of your derivations, then
> they might be able to argue we could be the Licensor, and (thus)
> Contributions fall back to us.
If that were a correct interpretation of ALv2 section 5 it would seem
to turn ALv2 into a copyleft license. I think there is universal
agreement that this is not possible. Independent of that, I think it
is not a correct interpretation of the ALv2 text. But if it *were* a
correct interpretation, I don't think the general use of
LibreOffice-style contribution statements or CLAs would alter the
situation.
- RF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On May 30, 2012 9:06 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Good to see you here :-) and thank you for the helpful
> feedback and discussion. It can only be hoped that I'll eventually
> find the hermenutical key I'm apparently missing around the ALv2.
Woah. I may have won on acronyms, but that is the first time I've ever
seen "hermenutical" (sic). Had to go look it up. Perfect word :-) You
win on the 25-cent word :-)
>...
> > Your larger Work can be released under MPLv2, but there is no right
> > under ALv2 for you to relicense that *specific* code.
There are two Works, as Larry states more clearly. Our Work under
ALv2, and yours under MPLv2. The portions that come from us are always
ALv2.
>
> Perhaps it's worth referencing the ALv2 text, and perhaps to
> simplify, can we take it for read that the 'Work' is Apache OO.o
> (incubating)'s recent release, and that Licensor is the ASF.
>
> The distinction between the Work itself, and a trivial subset
> of the Work (as made by eg. deleting all files except perhaps the
> NOTICE, a copy of the ALv2 and a single file of interest with a
> modified notice) is not that clear to me either. Are you arguing for a
> real distinction there ? Surely the ALv2 allows re-use of portions of
> the Work as well as the whole.
Absolutely.
But when you narrow the work, you might end up with a file under the
MIT license (such as our copy of Expat with apr-util). You could take
that file under its original license, discarding the the larger Work's
ALv2.
Similar situation with your Work's MPLv2 getting stripped down to some
of its contituent parts and their licenses.
>
> > (it seems you've already got this part, given else-thread, but
> > hoping to clarify; redistribution vs relicense)
>
> So - I suspect that the term the ALv2 uses in section 2 is
> sub-license here "each Contributor grants to You a ... copyright
> license to ... sublicense, and distribute the Work and
> such Derivative works in Source or Object form". Does that help ?
> clearly 're-licensing' as previously discussed is a rather imprecise
> description. Perhaps sub-licensing the Source form of the Work under
> the MPLv2 is more helpful ?
You still can't change the license of pieces. In this situation, I
read "sublicense" as you have been licensed to (sub)license to
another. ie. transitive, not transformative.
Take our Work. Apply your bits, call that your Work, and license the
latter under MPLv2.
>
> I was lead to believe that one of the flagship benefits of the
> ALv2 was the ability to ship binaries with or without modifications to
> any given file, under your choice of license. I see only small
> differences between the treatment of Source and Object forms in the
> license. Does a different situation hold for the Source form ?
It depends on whether you're talking an entire Work, or focusing on
its constituent parts. Pretty much any license for a new, derivative
Work is compatible with the ALv2. That's where you get your freedom of
choice.
But whatever you choose, "our" (the ASF) parts are still ALv2.
And that is where Source comes in. If you only get binaries, it makes
it very hard to use your ALv2 rights. I suspect there is an argument
that the binaries you receive might not contain any ALv2 rights since
our collective set of copyrights (and, thus, what gets licensed) are
on the source, rather than the object code. Then again, a machine
transformation may not be creative enough. We're getting off course,
maybe :-)
>...
> I hear
> about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
> being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
> ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
> submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
> to others under the ALv2.
I'm unclear on this aspect, to be honest. Let's just say that I would
recommend continuing your contribution statements. (Or even better:
collect actual CLAs)
I don't think you want to be in a situation where somebody argues a
patch to a file licensed under ALv2 by the ASF can be construed as
applicable to *our* codebase regardless of the location of that patch.
>
> It is of course, possible that freedesktop.org (or whomever
> hosts the repository) becomes the Licensor as they re-distribute ALv2
> covered code: is that a common interpretation ? that would create a
> network of sub-licensing under the same ALv2 license which seems
> reasonable; or is it Apache's interpretation that it remains the
> Licensor as the Work is re-distributed ?
We're the Licensor for the Work we distribute under the ALv2. Your
Work, distributed under MPLv2, has different terms.
If somebody extracts a portion that has none of your derivations, then
they might be able to argue we could be the Licensor, and (thus)
Contributions fall back to us.
Now... all this said, I'll reiterate something Roy has been saying for
the past few months: the ASF doesn't want to accept any contributions
that the author(s) does not want us to have. IOW, we aren't going to
aggressively interpret our license and scour the web for patches and
say that we're allowed to apply them to our codebase. So most of the
above details about who/how are likely a bit theoretical. Patches on
your mailing lists would only be applied against your codebase, and
would (thus) be distributed as part of LibreOffice under the MPLv2.
(tho the author *could* also submit them to AOO; that is their right)
> It is also unclear to me that a sub-license of the Work
> eg. with proprietary changes, under a commercial license is itself the
> Work. That may also interact with Section 5's use of Contribution:
> "for inclusion in the Work".
Right/Agreed.
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:20 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
> > > (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
> >
> > It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you
> > had one for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a
> > row... do I win?) are licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of
> > LO is under ALv2 post-rebasing.
>
> You definitely win the acronym war :-) This seems to be
> a re-statement of the impossibility of sub-licensing ALv2 covered Work
> under the MPLv2 without adding any work of authorship; hopefully we
> can clarify how that is proscribed in response to the above.
*nod*
>
> > (and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at all)
>
> Yep - I think that is settled :-)
>
> Anyhow - thanks for the input ! sorry for so many, no doubt
> rather basic questions all at once.
We all muddle through, and hope for clarity from the Real Lawyers :-)
(such as Larry's contribution to this thread)
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Hi Michael,
Unlike some timorous Apache members on here, I'm not afraid of telling you what I believe is the answer to your question, and I'm not worried because I qualify my responses (when necessary) with a warning that (1) I am not your lawyer and (2) you should consult your own attorney for legal advice. Other than that, I've never been afraid to jump in here with an opinion. This is an open list for discussion, and anyone who disagrees with me is also entitled to speak up or to stop listening.
Greg was correct in saying that nothing in the Apache license allows you to "relicense" Apache code. The term "relicense" should be stricken from your everyday vocabulary. Apache Software Foundation has no present plans to relicense any of the software it has a sole legal right to license.
Apache code is, and as far as I know will remain for at least 100 years, available to all under the Apache License 2.0.
The fact that someone combines an Apache work with an MPL2 work and licenses the new combined work under the MPL2 license does not affect the underlying truth of the previous paragraph.
As for derivative works of an Apache work, those can be licensed under any license including MPL2. This does not affect the underlying copyrights (or the license) in the underlying Apache work.
I encourage my commercial clients to admit proudly that they have created copies or derivative works of Apache software, but to disclose the source code of their own derivative works only if that is what they believe in doing for the sake of open source and their business model.
As for the details of the hypothetical you described, I'm not really sure what you need to know -- besides the general principles I summarized above -- to create accurate license headers for your code. The accuracy of your copyright headers is almost certainly a topic to ask your own copyright attorney.
Hope that helps, and also hope that we reassured Richard Fontana that not all Apache folks are afraid to express a legal opinion about our license.
Richard Fontana wrote:
It's moot now, but I don't think that issue is as clear-cut as this discussion has supposed. A copyright/license notice on a source file could refer to a larger work of which that source file is a constituent part. I'm not saying I would recommend that practice, as it could become misleading to some when the source file is viewed in isolation, but it seems not uncommon in open source project development. Nonetheless it is highly useful for everyone to get some sense that the ASF disapproves of such a practice.
I agree with Richard that the practice of inserting misleading copyright notices or deleting helpful ones should be discouraged. However, this is not a recommendation that Apache Software foundation makes; it doesn’t give legal advice.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Meeks [mailto:michael.meeks@suse.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:05 AM
To: Greg Stein
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; Richard Fontana; Ciaran Farrell; Benson Margulies; Luis Villa; Roy T. Fielding
Subject: Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Hi Greg,
Good to see you here :-) and thank you for the helpful feedback and discussion. It can only be hoped that I'll eventually find the hermenutical key I'm apparently missing around the ALv2.
I collated your two replies into one mail to shrink the thread; I hope that's ok. Of course, IANAL, please be patient with me, I'm exploring the corners of the license here.
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:41 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 29, 2012 6:25 AM, "Michael Meeks" < <ma...@suse.com> michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2
> > (section 4 or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a
> > copy-left license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that
> > this was an explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.
>
> Your larger Work can be released under MPLv2, but there is no right
> under ALv2 for you to relicense that *specific* code.
Perhaps it's worth referencing the ALv2 text, and perhaps to simplify, can we take it for read that the 'Work' is Apache OO.o (incubating)'s recent release, and that Licensor is the ASF.
The distinction between the Work itself, and a trivial subset of the Work (as made by eg. deleting all files except perhaps the NOTICE, a copy of the ALv2 and a single file of interest with a modified notice) is not that clear to me either. Are you arguing for a real distinction there ? Surely the ALv2 allows re-use of portions of the Work as well as the whole.
> (it seems you've already got this part, given else-thread, but hoping
> to clarify; redistribution vs relicense)
So - I suspect that the term the ALv2 uses in section 2 is sub-license here "each Contributor grants to You a ... copyright license to ... sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative works in Source or Object form". Does that help ?
clearly 're-licensing' as previously discussed is a rather imprecise description. Perhaps sub-licensing the Source form of the Work under the MPLv2 is more helpful ?
I was lead to believe that one of the flagship benefits of the
ALv2 was the ability to ship binaries with or without modifications to any given file, under your choice of license. I see only small differences between the treatment of Source and Object forms in the license. Does a different situation hold for the Source form ?
> My reading of his subtext/diplomacy is that you have little right to
> change the headers unless/until you make copyrightable changes to the
> file which you don't want to fall under ALv2, Section 5. (and if it
> wasn't his thought, then whatever... I believe that to be true, so
> ascribe the thought to me :-) )
Let me ascribe it to you, since I took Roy's helpful advice to be about the wisdom (or otherwise) of making a (C) claim :-) I hear about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available to others under the ALv2.
It is of course, possible that freedesktop.org (or whomever hosts the repository) becomes the Licensor as they re-distribute ALv2 covered code: is that a common interpretation ? that would create a network of sub-licensing under the same ALv2 license which seems reasonable; or is it Apache's interpretation that it remains the Licensor as the Work is re-distributed ?
It is also unclear to me that a sub-license of the Work eg. with proprietary changes, under a commercial license is itself the Work. That may also interact with Section 5's use of Contribution:
"for inclusion in the Work".
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:20 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe
> > the
> > (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
>
> It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you
> had one for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a row... do
> I win?) are licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of LO is under
> ALv2 post-rebasing.
You definitely win the acronym war :-) This seems to be a re-statement of the impossibility of sub-licensing ALv2 covered Work under the MPLv2 without adding any work of authorship; hopefully we can clarify how that is proscribed in response to the above.
> (and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at
> all)
Yep - I think that is settled :-)
Anyhow - thanks for the input ! sorry for so many, no doubt rather basic questions all at once.
Regards,
Michael.
--
<ma...@suse.com> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:27:10AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I would also re-iterate Sam's post that the advice provided
>> here does not constitute "real" legal advice; it is a
>> list for the discussion of legal issues but should not be
>> used, or perceived, as the ASF (or anyone one, or any entity)
>> providing authoritative legal advice.
>
> I understand of course it is not legal advice. But who would
> someone/something like Michael/LibreOffice/TDF talk to learn how the
> ASF authoritatively interprets the license it specifically is
> granting? I am asking out of more general interest, not specifically
> about LibreOffice and AOO.
The short answer is: the license is what it is. Providing official
answers to such questions is not a service that we generally provide.
We are aware that some have initially found our software to be
unsuitable to their intended purpose because of this. Our experience
is that such is rare, and many if not most quickly reconsider this.
That being said, many, many, many people do find our software and
license terms to be suitable.
I'll even attempt to offer a pointer. I've lost track of where the
current Jasper (JSP) source resides in OpenJDK, but at one time that
was based on code from Apache Tomcat. Perhaps somebody on this list
can track this down and provide a link?
> A copyright/license notice on a source file
> could refer to a larger work of which that source file is a
> constituent part. I'm not saying I would recommend that practice, as
> it could become misleading to some when the source file is viewed in
> isolation, but it seems not uncommon in open source project
> development. Nonetheless it is highly useful for everyone to get some
> sense that the ASF disapproves of such a practice.
The ASF has not taken an official position of such a practice. I will
paraphrase(*) Roy's original statement this way: "making over-broad
and potentially false or misleading statements about copyright is not
likely to be an effective way of addressing your stated goals".
Nothing more, nothing less. And certainly not an official an ASF
position on the matter.
Overall, I am pleased that many are finding this discussion useful,
and welcome it to continue.
- Sam Ruby
(*) and like Greg, I will take ownership of my own interpretation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
To be clear: In general, providing legal advice is not a service
the ASF provides to "external" entities. Whatever legal services
we do provide are on the behalf of the projects of the ASF.
I simply don't want any confusion or uncertainly to arise
regarding that, which could theoretically result in risk
to the ASF and/or its members and projects. I want to avoid
the potential that someone would follow the discussion and
interpret any position statements as legal advice without
checking the validity of that advice, and then take action
on that interpretation, resulting in major Badness for that
person and "hey! The ASF said I could do that! But I can't!"
and take action against us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On May 30, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:27:10AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I would also re-iterate Sam's post that the advice provided
>> here does not constitute "real" legal advice; it is a
>> list for the discussion of legal issues but should not be
>> used, or perceived, as the ASF (or anyone one, or any entity)
>> providing authoritative legal advice.
>
> I understand of course it is not legal advice. But who would
> someone/something like Michael/LibreOffice/TDF talk to learn how the
> ASF authoritatively interprets the license it specifically is
> granting? I am asking out of more general interest, not specifically
> about LibreOffice and AOO.
>
Here, of course. But the issue is the distinction between
discussion and advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:27:10AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I would also re-iterate Sam's post that the advice provided
> here does not constitute "real" legal advice; it is a
> list for the discussion of legal issues but should not be
> used, or perceived, as the ASF (or anyone one, or any entity)
> providing authoritative legal advice.
I understand of course it is not legal advice. But who would
someone/something like Michael/LibreOffice/TDF talk to learn how the
ASF authoritatively interprets the license it specifically is
granting? I am asking out of more general interest, not specifically
about LibreOffice and AOO.
The issue is not simply one of getting advice on the other side on
what the Apache License 2.0 means in the abstract. With hundreds of
present-day ASF projects, we have what at least appears to be one
entity, one licensor, granting one common license; for better or worse
this is a rather unique situation where an organization ought to be
able to speak with one voice as to what its own license (the license
it actually drafted as well as which it grants) means for that large
set of projects.
> I am sure that the TDF itself is doing its own legal due-diligence
> and is getting de-facto legal counsel in its efforts.
> I assume that
> the people on the CC list are those people...
Just to clarify, I am not counsel, de facto or otherwise, to TDF. I
represent only one client at this time, Red Hat, Inc. :-)
> Or, at least, I
> hope so, but am thinking otherwise since they would not have
> allowed the embarrassing "copyright issue" to have even made
> it out of the gate.
It's moot now, but I don't think that issue is as clear-cut as this
discussion has supposed. A copyright/license notice on a source file
could refer to a larger work of which that source file is a
constituent part. I'm not saying I would recommend that practice, as
it could become misleading to some when the source file is viewed in
isolation, but it seems not uncommon in open source project
development. Nonetheless it is highly useful for everyone to get some
sense that the ASF disapproves of such a practice.
- RF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On May 30, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> Anyhow - thanks for the input ! sorry for so many, no doubt
> rather basic questions all at once.
>
I would also re-iterate Sam's post that the advice provided
here does not constitute "real" legal advice; it is a
list for the discussion of legal issues but should not be
used, or perceived, as the ASF (or anyone one, or any entity)
providing authoritative legal advice.
I am sure that the TDF itself is doing its own legal due-diligence
and is getting de-facto legal counsel in its efforts. I assume that
the people on the CC list are those people... Or, at least, I
hope so, but am thinking otherwise since they would not have
allowed the embarrassing "copyright issue" to have even made
it out of the gate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Greg,
Good to see you here :-) and thank you for the helpful
feedback and discussion. It can only be hoped that I'll eventually
find the hermenutical key I'm apparently missing around the ALv2.
I collated your two replies into one mail to shrink the
thread; I hope that's ok. Of course, IANAL, please be patient with me,
I'm exploring the corners of the license here.
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:41 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 29, 2012 6:25 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2 (section 4
> > or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a copy-left
> > license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that this was an
> > explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.
>
> Your larger Work can be released under MPLv2, but there is no right
> under ALv2 for you to relicense that *specific* code.
Perhaps it's worth referencing the ALv2 text, and perhaps to
simplify, can we take it for read that the 'Work' is Apache OO.o
(incubating)'s recent release, and that Licensor is the ASF.
The distinction between the Work itself, and a trivial subset
of the Work (as made by eg. deleting all files except perhaps the
NOTICE, a copy of the ALv2 and a single file of interest with a
modified notice) is not that clear to me either. Are you arguing for a
real distinction there ? Surely the ALv2 allows re-use of portions of
the Work as well as the whole.
> (it seems you've already got this part, given else-thread, but
> hoping to clarify; redistribution vs relicense)
So - I suspect that the term the ALv2 uses in section 2 is
sub-license here "each Contributor grants to You a ... copyright
license to ... sublicense, and distribute the Work and
such Derivative works in Source or Object form". Does that help ?
clearly 're-licensing' as previously discussed is a rather imprecise
description. Perhaps sub-licensing the Source form of the Work under
the MPLv2 is more helpful ?
I was lead to believe that one of the flagship benefits of the
ALv2 was the ability to ship binaries with or without modifications to
any given file, under your choice of license. I see only small
differences between the treatment of Source and Object forms in the
license. Does a different situation hold for the Source form ?
> My reading of his subtext/diplomacy is that you have little right to
> change the headers unless/until you make copyrightable changes to
> the file which you don't want to fall under ALv2, Section 5. (and if
> it wasn't his thought, then whatever... I believe that to be true,
> so ascribe the thought to me :-) )
Let me ascribe it to you, since I took Roy's helpful advice to
be about the wisdom (or otherwise) of making a (C) claim :-) I hear
about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
to others under the ALv2.
It is of course, possible that freedesktop.org (or whomever
hosts the repository) becomes the Licensor as they re-distribute ALv2
covered code: is that a common interpretation ? that would create a
network of sub-licensing under the same ALv2 license which seems
reasonable; or is it Apache's interpretation that it remains the
Licensor as the Work is re-distributed ?
It is also unclear to me that a sub-license of the Work
eg. with proprietary changes, under a commercial license is itself the
Work. That may also interact with Section 5's use of Contribution:
"for inclusion in the Work".
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 05:20 -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
> > (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
>
> It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you
> had one for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a
> row... do I win?) are licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of
> LO is under ALv2 post-rebasing.
You definitely win the acronym war :-) This seems to be
a re-statement of the impossibility of sub-licensing ALv2 covered Work
under the MPLv2 without adding any work of authorship; hopefully we
can clarify how that is proscribed in response to the above.
> (and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at all)
Yep - I think that is settled :-)
Anyhow - thanks for the input ! sorry for so many, no doubt
rather basic questions all at once.
Regards,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On May 30, 2012 4:35 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Benson.
>
> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >...
> > Roy's email, I think, disputes the notion that these initial
> > mechanical changes actually create derived works. His email focussed
> > on the copyright and license of *the modifications*, not the whole
> > thing. Of course, I may just be confused.
>
> More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
> (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you had one
for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a row... do I win?) are
licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of LO is under ALv2 post-rebasing.
If you *stop* using a CLA, then it seems the arriving commits fall under
section 5 of ALv2, as Contributions, and become licensed that way.
And regardless of any CLA, you can claim your derivative Work under MPLv2
with portions under ALv2. And a question of how much, especially
going-forward is ALv2 vs MPLv2.
(and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at all)
Cheers,
-g
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Benson.
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm going to join this thread for my own education. I think I see a
> core point of discussion here, but I may be off base.
:-)
> So, we have this large body of source files, with copyright scattered
> all over creation, distributed under the ALv2.
Sure; and Roy's helpful advice explained that a copyright
statement is really not a good idea; much appreciated :-) If you notice
the updated header proposal I posted, and the version in the wiki - that
is fixed - thanks for that.
> You are planning to make some relatively small changes to these files,
> and are posing questions about the licensing, copyright, and IP status
> of the results.
We have a large number of changes all across the code of varying
size and expression, that is true; finding a single, agreed yard-stick
for expressiveness & creativity for some tens of thousands of commits to
a many tens of thousands of files seems unlikely to work well :-)
> I suspect, based on your email, that you are thinking about this in
> terms of creating derived works of the original source, claiming
> copyright on the derived work, and then licensing the derived work
> using a weak copyleft.
The updated plan is not to claim copyright on the code and to
following the ASF licensing model in that regard.
> Roy's email, I think, disputes the notion that these initial
> mechanical changes actually create derived works. His email focussed
> on the copyright and license of *the modifications*, not the whole
> thing. Of course, I may just be confused.
More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
(C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.
But of course IANAL,
Thanks for your patience,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 5/29/12 8:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Juergen Schmidt
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> do you simply ask for
>> permission too exchange the header only?
>
> I don't believe that Michael needs to ask for permission, nor would we
> be in a position to give it. All the permissions we are prepared to
> give are contained in the Apache License.
>
> When people come to us who request guidance on courses of actions that
> they are considering what we generally do is recommend that they seek
> their own council. The most we do is provide a few pointers.[1]
>
> That being said, if people wish to participate in an informal
> discussion here on this matter, they are welcome to do so.
>
I understand and thanks for pointing it out.
I simply want to understand what exactly they want to do, maybe I chose
the wrong words to express it. But I am eager to learn.
I especially interested how it can work in practise. We talk about
thousands of files with minor changes when they have applied their
patches. And I have no idea how it can work in practise to identify
these minor changes.
Again I am interested to learn how it can work and what are the correct
steps. It's of general interest to me and I thought asking this here on
the list is appropriate.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Juergen Schmidt
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> do you simply ask for
> permission too exchange the header only?
I don't believe that Michael needs to ask for permission, nor would we
be in a position to give it. All the permissions we are prepared to
give are contained in the Apache License.
When people come to us who request guidance on courses of actions that
they are considering what we generally do is recommend that they seek
their own council. The most we do is provide a few pointers.[1]
That being said, if people wish to participate in an informal
discussion here on this matter, they are welcome to do so.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/#get-in-touch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 5/29/12 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm going to join this thread for my own education. I think I see a
> core point of discussion here, but I may be off base.
>
> So, we have this large body of source files, with copyright scattered
> all over creation, distributed under the ALv2.
>
> You are planning to make some relatively small changes to these files,
> and are posing questions about the licensing, copyright, and IP status
> of the results.
>
> I suspect, based on your email, that you are thinking about this in
> terms of creating derived works of the original source, claiming
> copyright on the derived work, and then licensing the derived work
> using a weak copyleft.
>
> Roy's email, I think, disputes the notion that these initial
> mechanical changes actually create derived works. His email focussed
> on the copyright and license of *the modifications*, not the whole
> thing. Of course, I may just be confused.
>
> To claim copyright, an individual, identified, human being has to do
> work that meets the criteria for copyright, and then that human being
> can in turn assign his or her rights to some corporate entity. Roy's
> email encourages you to mark up the actual, concrete, changes.
that was my understanding as well. And I am still wondering how it would
be for files where the main changes are of cosmetic nature (e.g.
removing newlines, spaces, removing German comments etc.).
And what exactly do you plan or want to do. Do you want to rebase to our
AOO3.4 codebase and apply your changes again or do you simply ask for
permission too exchange the header only?
Please be more concrete what exactly you want that we can understand it
better?
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I'm going to join this thread for my own education. I think I see a
core point of discussion here, but I may be off base.
So, we have this large body of source files, with copyright scattered
all over creation, distributed under the ALv2.
You are planning to make some relatively small changes to these files,
and are posing questions about the licensing, copyright, and IP status
of the results.
I suspect, based on your email, that you are thinking about this in
terms of creating derived works of the original source, claiming
copyright on the derived work, and then licensing the derived work
using a weak copyleft.
Roy's email, I think, disputes the notion that these initial
mechanical changes actually create derived works. His email focussed
on the copyright and license of *the modifications*, not the whole
thing. Of course, I may just be confused.
To claim copyright, an individual, identified, human being has to do
work that meets the criteria for copyright, and then that human being
can in turn assign his or her rights to some corporate entity. Roy's
email encourages you to mark up the actual, concrete, changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On May 29, 2012 6:25 AM, "Michael Meeks" <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >...
> > > M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> > > M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> > > M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
> >
> > I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
> > MPL2. It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
> > You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
> > permission to change it to the Apache License.
>
> The code in question is available un-modified (modulo the
> license header) under both the LGPLv3-only and the AL2 (from an
> approved Apache incubator release). We would be re-basing onto the
> Apache licensed version.
>
> I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2 (section 4
> or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a copy-left
> license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that this was an
> explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.
Your larger Work can be released under MPLv2, but there is no right under
ALv2 for you to relicense that *specific* code.
(it seems you've already got this part, given else-thread, but hoping to
clarify; redistribution vs relicense)
>
> > If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
> > just directs people to your project
>
> The intention is to ensure that the modified files are made
> available not under the terms of the AL2, but under the terms of the
> MPLv2. Incidentally all of our [ch]xx files will be modified from
> the Apache versions in various often mechanical ways.
The bulk of the files' content will be usable under ALv2. A downstream LO
consumer could strip your 3 changes and use it under ALv2. Of course, they
could also just use our original.
They could also extract a few of your changes, continue to license that
under MPLv2, and combine it with AOO and proprietary work for their own
product. Given statements in the FAQ on your wiki, it seems you've accepted
the weaker copyleft and this potential result. (Yeah, I know that doesn't
make you guys happy :-/ )
> > I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
> > changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF
>
> I suspect that it is neither useful or on-topic to discuss the
> politics here;
I seriously doubt that was Roy's intent.
My reading of his subtext/diplomacy is that you have little right to change
the headers unless/until you make copyrightable changes to the file which
you don't want to fall under ALv2, Section 5. (and if it wasn't his
thought, then whatever... I believe that to be true, so ascribe the thought
to me :-) )
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Roy,
Thank you for your feedback.
On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I assume you mean they are unchanged since they were formerly
> licensed by Sun/Oracle as LGPLv3.
Correct; that is the case for most files.
> > /*
> > C Copyright 2012 LibreOffice contributors.
>
> Who/What is "LibreOffice contributors" and what copyrightable
> expression did they create in 2012?
The LibreOffice contributors I'm thinking of here are all those
that have contributed to the LibreOffice code, either directly or
indirectly that can have a meaningful (C) claim; that would include
Oracle of course. As such, of course it's arguably not a very meaningful
statement ;-)
> Assuming you just made that up, please understand that it is illegal
> under US copyright law (Sec 506(c)) to claim copyright for something
> on which you do not actually own copyright. That is why the ASF
> stopped adding ASF copyrights to individual files years ago -- we
> usually don't own the copyright to individual files, only to the
> collective work, and instead hold non-exclusive licenses from the
> copyright owners.
Thanks; great input; so we should then have a vaguer header line
perhaps of the form:
* This file is part of the LibreOffice project.
Or somesuch.
> > M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> > M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> > M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
>
> I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
> MPL2. It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
> You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
> permission to change it to the Apache License.
The code in question is available un-modified (modulo the
license header) under both the LGPLv3-only and the AL2 (from an
approved Apache incubator release). We would be re-basing onto the
Apache licensed version.
I'm not aware of any re-distribution clause in the AL2 (section 4
or otherwise) that forbids re-distribution of AL2 under a copy-left
license such as the MPLv2. Indeed, I had understood that this was an
explicit goal of the MPLv2 process, and indeed the GPLv3 process.
> If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
> just directs people to your project
The intention is to ensure that the modified files are made
available not under the terms of the AL2, but under the terms of the
MPLv2. Incidentally all of our [ch]xx files will be modified from
the Apache versions in various often mechanical ways.
> I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
> changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF
I suspect that it is neither useful or on-topic to discuss the
politics here; suffice it to say that we wish to provide our code changes
exclusively under a category-b weak-copy-left license. Naturally we want
to do that in a way that is compliant with the inbound Apache license -
hence asking for advice here.
> When you do make a change to a file, you can either add a comment
> around or near the changed part to say that you changed it (and
> apply whatever license you want specifically to those changes) or
> you can change the header in a factual way that includes a pointer
> to the license and the NOTICE file. For example,
Oh - that is interesting.
> "Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
> under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
> See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
> regarding copyright ownership."
So - would you would be happier with something like this header:
/*
C This file is part of the LibreOffice project [ono.]
C
M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
M
A Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
A under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
A See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
A regarding copyright ownership."
*/
Though, personally I prefer the clarity of the previous one that
retained more of the original Apache license header. If so, I'm happier
as it makes the header yet shorter and sweeter. Are there any examples of
this form of shortened header elsewhere ?
Many thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On May 23, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> We are doing the ground-work for file-by-file, incremental
> re-basing of our work on top of the same code release by Oracle under
> the Apache License 2.0. Since the overwhelming majority of files in
> the Apache OpenOffice incubator repository are un-touched since
> checkin (aside from new license headers and some permission fixes) this
> should initially be reasonably uncomplicated. As noted ad-nasusem
> elsewhere, we plan to do this under the MPLv2 license - more details
> here:
I assume you mean they are unchanged since they were formerly
licensed by Sun/Oracle as LGPLv3.
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
>
> As such, we need a new header for source code that makes the
> situation clear. We want to get this right, I append the existing
> suggestion labelled to aid the discussion, with the hope that it will
> conclude in linear time :-)
>
> Our intention would be to include the relevant NOTICE file,
> MPLv2 and Apache licenses into our existing source repository and
> documentation distributed with the product.
>
> My hope is that the MPLv2 header 'M' and lines 'G' meet the
> requirement of a prominent notice that the file is modified.
>
> Those with keen eyesight will notice the removal of the
> substantial disclaimer which appears permissible under the AL2 section
> 4.3. We are eager to have a short, MPLv2-like license header to
> improve readability. Both the linked licenses contain this sort of
> comprehensive "if it breaks you get two pieces !" language in their
> text.
>
> Thanks in advance for your input; maintaining the CC is much
> appreciated by those not subscribed to the list :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
> [ apologies for the re-send, was blocked by moderation it seems =]
>
> /*
> C Copyright 2012 LibreOffice contributors.
Who/What is "LibreOffice contributors" and what copyrightable expression
did they create in 2012?
Assuming you just made that up, please understand that it is illegal
under US copyright law (Sec 506(c)) to claim copyright for something
on which you do not actually own copyright. That is why the ASF
stopped adding ASF copyrights to individual files years ago -- we
usually don't own the copyright to individual files, only to the
collective work, and instead hold non-exclusive licenses from the
copyright owners.
> M This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
> M License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
> M file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.
I am not aware of the copyright owners ever licensing the code as
MPL2. It's a fine license, but you can't just decide that for them.
You would need their permission to do so, just like we needed
permission to change it to the Apache License.
If you want to add a comment at the beginning of every file that
just directs people to your project, you can do that without changing
the licensing. However, I doubt that would be useful. Just create
your own README and user documentation -- people don't look to the
code for information on how to contribute.
I suggest you just leave each file's headers as they are until
changes are made that you don't want to submit to the ASF (that's
fine, we only accept voluntary contributions). If you make bug
fixes, please do submit them to the ASF -- they usually aren't
separately copyrightable anyway.
When you do make a change to a file, you can either add a comment
around or near the changed part to say that you changed it (and
apply whatever license you want specifically to those changes) or
you can change the header in a factual way that includes a pointer
to the license and the NOTICE file. For example,
"Portions of this file are licensed by the Apache Software Foundation
under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information
regarding copyright ownership."
Cheers,
....Roy T. Fielding, Director, The Apache Software Foundation
(fielding@apache.org) <http://www.apache.org/>
(fielding@gbiv.com) <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org