You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Hiram Chirino <ch...@gmail.com> on 2006/10/25 15:48:27 UTC
The Createuve Commons Lic.
Hi,
Can we bundle content/code in Apache releases that uses the create commons
license? See:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
Great, thanks for the update Cliff!
(FWIW most of the uses of Creative Commons in ActiveMQ are for
optional CSS & JavaScript files in the web console or some XSDs for
XMPP/Jabber used in code generation, so folks can use ActiveMQ without
the Creative Commons bits if they are one of those few dozen large
software vendors :)
On 10/27/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
> > mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
> > definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
> > that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
> > more than just images.
> >
> > Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
> >
> > Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
>
> It depends on which CC license you're talking about. Some of them do
> not allow commercial derivative works and some don't allow derivative
> works at all. The one Hiram has a link to below is the most
> permissive, only requiring attribution. The only problem with this
> license is that it explicitly denies the right to sublicense. You can
> distribute the work within a larger, collective work; but you cannot
> do so under a different license (offering the same or a subset of the
> permissions and at least all the restrictions). So, this can be a
> pain for software vendors who want to build on an Apache product and
> deliver that to customers under a pre-existing contract, without
> having to introduce new license documents they have to agree to (our
> license requires it is distributed with the work, but does permit
> sublicensing under other compatible terms).
>
> So, it isn't ideal; but on the other hand, I don't think we should
> restrict the use of such software just to avoid inconveniencing a few
> dozen large software vendors. It's possible those large vendors will
> choose to avoid an Apache product with this no-sublicensing issue
> associated with it, but that's for the project to decide how much that
> matters.
>
> The short answer is that I think we should try to avoid it when we
> can, but if a project wants to include it, I think they should be able
> to do so. I also think we might want to include a label for this
> products with a no-sublicensing requirement (see
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#labeling for ideas for
> other labels).
>
> Cliff
>
> > On 10/25/06, Hiram Chirino <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Can we bundle content/code in Apache releases that uses the create commons
> > > license? See:
> > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Hiram
> > >
> > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
For future reference (and yes, this will need to go into that dreaded
3rd party licensing doc ;-)...the CC license discussed in this thread
is acceptable only because it allows derivative works and commercial
use. Here's how I would classify the CC licenses:
Acceptable but somewhat discouraged:
- Creative Commons Attribution
Unacceptable:
- Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
- Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Questionable -- needs a closer look (would probably get same treatment as OSL):
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/27/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/26/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
> > > mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
> > > definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
> > > that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
> > > more than just images.
> > >
> > > Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
> > >
> > > Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
> >
> > It depends on which CC license you're talking about. Some of them do
> > not allow commercial derivative works and some don't allow derivative
> > works at all. The one Hiram has a link to below is the most
> > permissive, only requiring attribution. The only problem with this
> > license is that it explicitly denies the right to sublicense.
>
> My usual dumb question - what's sublicensing?
The act of sublicensing is what happens when a licensee becomes a
licensor to some other party by granting some or all of the rights
that they received as a licensee. Unless restricted from sublicensing
under other terms (which is not allowed for source code under the
MPL/CDDL/CPL/EPL), the sublicensing can remove some of the granted
permissions or add some additional restrictions; of course, the other
direction would not make sense (you can't give more than you got). In
the cases where sublicensing is restricted to identical terms, one
cannot offer the work under a different license if it leaves out any
part of the original permissions or (more likely) includes any
additional restriction.
If you are given the right to distribute but no right to sublicense,
the recipient of your distribution gets no rights from you to
copy/modify/distribute/etc what you just gave them. So, what happens
to recipients of GPL, LGPL, and CC licenses, which do not allow
sublicensing? They each include some intereting text saying that, at
the moment of distribution, the recipient automatically gets a license
from the original licensor -- without the middleman getting a chance
to do anything at all. For practical purposes, I consider this pretty
similar to the right to sublicense but only under identical terms.
> My current level is that I get that we have all these bits in an
> Apache release with lots of licenses on them, and that we license the
> combination under the Apache license. Someone else then takes that and
> adds a few other bits (or maybe nothing) and licenses that combination
> under whatever they want as long as they obey the various bits in
> there.
True, but the issue here is whether someone takes any one of those
parts and decides to distribute it and offer a license to someone else
that is different from the original one.
> So for some of our projects this means there are parts of the source
> code that are trickier to change than other parts.
>
> How does sublicensing fit into this, and do the usual suspects (the
> MPL/CDDL group and LGPL/GPL) allow sublicensing?
I think I explained that above, but let me know if you'd like me to
clarify/elaborate.
And if there are any lawyers out there who want to correct/challenge
anything I've said, feel free!
Cliff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 10/26/06, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
> > mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
> > definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
> > that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
> > more than just images.
> >
> > Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
> >
> > Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
>
> It depends on which CC license you're talking about. Some of them do
> not allow commercial derivative works and some don't allow derivative
> works at all. The one Hiram has a link to below is the most
> permissive, only requiring attribution. The only problem with this
> license is that it explicitly denies the right to sublicense.
My usual dumb question - what's sublicensing?
My current level is that I get that we have all these bits in an
Apache release with lots of licenses on them, and that we license the
combination under the Apache license. Someone else then takes that and
adds a few other bits (or maybe nothing) and licenses that combination
under whatever they want as long as they obey the various bits in
there.
So for some of our projects this means there are parts of the source
code that are trickier to change than other parts.
How does sublicensing fit into this, and do the usual suspects (the
MPL/CDDL group and LGPL/GPL) allow sublicensing?
Thanks,
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/26/06, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
> mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
> definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
> that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
> more than just images.
>
> Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
>
> Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
It depends on which CC license you're talking about. Some of them do
not allow commercial derivative works and some don't allow derivative
works at all. The one Hiram has a link to below is the most
permissive, only requiring attribution. The only problem with this
license is that it explicitly denies the right to sublicense. You can
distribute the work within a larger, collective work; but you cannot
do so under a different license (offering the same or a subset of the
permissions and at least all the restrictions). So, this can be a
pain for software vendors who want to build on an Apache product and
deliver that to customers under a pre-existing contract, without
having to introduce new license documents they have to agree to (our
license requires it is distributed with the work, but does permit
sublicensing under other compatible terms).
So, it isn't ideal; but on the other hand, I don't think we should
restrict the use of such software just to avoid inconveniencing a few
dozen large software vendors. It's possible those large vendors will
choose to avoid an Apache product with this no-sublicensing issue
associated with it, but that's for the project to decide how much that
matters.
The short answer is that I think we should try to avoid it when we
can, but if a project wants to include it, I think they should be able
to do so. I also think we might want to include a label for this
products with a no-sublicensing requirement (see
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#labeling for ideas for
other labels).
Cliff
> On 10/25/06, Hiram Chirino <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can we bundle content/code in Apache releases that uses the create commons
> > license? See:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: The Createuve Commons Lic.
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I think it was a borderline license due to one of its clauses and not
mentioned in 3rd party as its usage at the ASF wasn't known, but it's
definitely in use at the ASF as Roller ships with icons licensed under
that license. I suspect it's crept in in quite a few places, and for
more than just images.
Roller icons: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/
Cliff - do you recall what the problems were with creative commons?
Hen
On 10/25/06, Hiram Chirino <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can we bundle content/code in Apache releases that uses the create commons
> license? See:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org