Proposed Apache License 2.0: When can we expect the second draft?

[Nathanael Nerode <ne...@twcny.rr.com>]

I remember that the following issues were raised:

* License for the license is insufficiently permissive.
Thread starting: 
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=license@apache.org&msgNo=38
Everyone agreed that there was a better way to write what was intended, 
so this should be uncontroversial.

* Clause 3C is overbroad, apparently by accident.
Everyone seemed to agree that it should be narrowed; Eben Moglen wrote a 
good fix in his message:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=license@apache.org&msgNo=69

* NOTICE clause is written unclearly, and may be overbroad as written, 
although the intention is correct.  Most notably, it doesn't allow the 
removal of notices which *never* applied to the work in question.  It 
also never defines 'notices'; it should specify that these are supposed 
to be legal notices.  (Among other threads, mine at 
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=license@apache.org&msgId=1125924.)

* Clause 5 sentence one is considered overbroad and dangerous by many 
including HP, the FSF, and Debian -- insofar as it may impact entirely 
unrelated patent lawsuits having nothing to do with the work in 
question, even for patents having little to do with software but 
theoretically "applicable to software".  (Although I guess a few people 
supported it.)  In contrast, Clause 5 sentence 2 is supported and 
approved by everyone.  (And some people felt that it should be broadened 
to terminate copyright licenses as well, although that would render it 
GPL-incompatible.)

I might have missed some, but I don't think so. :-)

So I guess someone should be working up a second draft.  But the first 
draft is still the one on the webpage.  Is there an estimated time for a 
second draft to come out for commentary?  (January? March? June?)  Just 
so we know when to start thinking about it again.

Re: Proposed Apache License 2.0: When can we expect the second draft?

[Dave Hodder <dm...@dmh.org.uk>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>> IANAL but I do wonder if Clause 7 ("Redistribution with Modification") 
>> could state more clearly that both source and binary-only Derivative 
>> Works are permitted.
> 
> It should be clearer in the updated version I just posted.

Yes, as a layperson it seems much clearer to me now.  Many thanks.

Dave

Re: Proposed Apache License 2.0: When can we expect the second draft?

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>]

> IANAL but I do wonder if Clause 7 ("Redistribution with Modification") 
> could state more clearly that both source and binary-only Derivative 
> Works are permitted.

It should be clearer in the updated version I just posted.

> In addition shouldn't 7(c) -- "You must cause any modified files to 
> carry prominent notices..." be more along the lines of "You must cause 
> the source code of any modified files to carry prominent notices..."? 
> Otherwise would one not have to somehow include a prominent notice in 
> every modified binary?

Yes, if the binary was modified. In general, though, the source is
modified and the binary is simply replaced, in which case the compiler
will note that automatically.

....Roy

Re: Proposed Apache License 2.0: When can we expect the second draft?

[Dave Hodder <dm...@dmh.org.uk>]

IANAL but I do wonder if Clause 7 ("Redistribution with Modification") 
could state more clearly that both source and binary-only Derivative 
Works are permitted.

In addition shouldn't 7(c) -- "You must cause any modified files to 
carry prominent notices..." be more along the lines of "You must cause 
the source code of any modified files to carry prominent notices..."? 
Otherwise would one not have to somehow include a prominent notice in 
every modified binary?

Regards,

Dave

Re: Proposed Apache License 2.0: When can we expect the second draft?

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>]

> So I guess someone should be working up a second draft.  But the first 
> draft is still the one on the webpage.  Is there an estimated time for 
> a second draft to come out for commentary?  (January? March? June?)  
> Just so we know when to start thinking about it again.

Yesterday, or at least that was the idea before the power failed.
I'll send it in a minute.  Since the changes were extensive, they
required internal review first.

....Roy