You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com> on 2005/07/17 12:36:07 UTC
Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
>>> Like the RFC process the specifications are crafted by a closed
>>> group. However anyone can implement these specifications.
>>
>> I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
>
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
That's impossible. Here are example copyright licenses:
BSD:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, are permitted provided that the following
conditions are met:
Apache:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each
Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright
license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
GPL:
You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that
you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Do you see anything even remotely like the above phrases in the
below license to the OSGi specification?
Thank you for your request. The download of OSGi specifications
and specification files are covered by Legal Terms and Conditions
as appended below. Please read these Terms and Conditions.
If you choose to download the OSGi specifications and
specification files you are agreeing to these Legal Terms and
Conditions. To download the OSGi specification, please read the
following Licensing Agreement and then click the link below and
proceed to the download page.
LEGAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING SPECIFICATION
Implementation of certain elements of the Open Services Gateway
Initiative (OSGi)Specification may be subject to third party
intellectual property rights, including without limitation,
patent rights (such a third party may or may not be a member
of OSGi). OSGi is not responsible and shall not be held
responsible in any manner for identifying or failing to identify
any or all such third party intellectual property rights.
THE RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE SPECIFICATION
IS PROVIDED AS IS AND WITH NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, WHETHER
EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO
ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, FITNESS OF
ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY WARRANTY OTHERWISE ARISING OUT
OF ANY PROPOSAL, SPECIFICATION, OR SAMPLE. THE RECIPIENT'S USE
OF THE SPECIFICATION IS SOLELY AT THE RECIPIENT'S OWN RISK.
THE RECIPIENT'S USE OF THE SPECIFICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE
RECIPIENT'S OSGi MEMBER AGREEMENT, IN THE EVENT THAT THE
RECIPIENT IS AN OSGi MEMBER. IN NO EVENT SHALL OSGi BE LIABLE
OR OBLIGATED TO THE RECIPIENT OR ANY THIRD PARTY IN ANY MANNER
FOR ANY SPECIAL, NON-COMPENSATORY, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, STATUTORY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS AND LOST REVENUE, REGARDLESS OF
THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF OSGi HAS
BEEN INFORMED OF OR IS AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH
DAMAGES IN ADVANCE. THE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL BE
DEEMED TO APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE
OF ANY LIMITED REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE RECIPIENT.
THE RECIPIENT ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE RECIPIENT
HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE FOREGOING ALLOCATION OF RISK AND
FINDS IT REASONABLE, AND THAT THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS ARE
AN ESSENTIAL BASIS OF THE BARGAIN BETWEEN THE RECIPIENT AND OSGi.
IF THE RECIPIENT USES THE SPECIFICATION, THE RECIPIENT AGREES
TO ALL OF THE FOREGOING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF THE RECIPIENT
DOES NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, THE RECIPIENT
SHOULD NOT USE THE SPECIFICATION AND SHOULD CONTACT OSGi
IMMEDIATELY.
I don't see any license there. Under international copyright law,
recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
to redistribute or create derivative works. The OSGi membership
agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
to other MEMBERS. Thus, my interpretation is that OSGi does not
have sufficient rights in combined works to simply license them on
their own to the ASF.
Therefore, according to OSGi documentation, we need a separate
CLA from every significant contributor to the code base before
we can distribute that code at Apache.
....Roy
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
I cannot visualize how ANY software standard can effectively be open unless
its specification is available to everyone under an open source license. By
the time the specification is published by someone like IETF or OASIS, it
has often lost the identity of its contributors and there is no Apache CLA
that would directly apply to it.
Of course, if someone contributed to Apache an implementation of a
specification, that contribution would presumably be covered by a CLA.
The reason we need an open source license is that organizations like Apache
and their customers are likely to copy materials from a specification in
order to implement the specification. Furthermore some specification owners
might argue (Sun does, for example, or at least they used to) that
implementations of a specification are derivative works of that
specification (even though specific code snippets aren't copied or aren't
copyrightable).
So if Apache intends to implement a specification for an industry standard,
it would be wise to ask if that specification is available under an open
source license.
I leave for another thread the issues about patent licenses for those
software standards.
/Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
>
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > I think I would get it from the Specification itself,
> "Legal Terms
> > > and Conditions regarding the Specification";
> >
> > Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my
> impression is,
> > that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to
> any *software
> > implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> > latter.
>
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
>
> And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
>
> Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the
> clear, what is the problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut
> and await further announcements.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
I cannot visualize how ANY software standard can effectively be open unless
its specification is available to everyone under an open source license. By
the time the specification is published by someone like IETF or OASIS, it
has often lost the identity of its contributors and there is no Apache CLA
that would directly apply to it.
Of course, if someone contributed to Apache an implementation of a
specification, that contribution would presumably be covered by a CLA.
The reason we need an open source license is that organizations like Apache
and their customers are likely to copy materials from a specification in
order to implement the specification. Furthermore some specification owners
might argue (Sun does, for example, or at least they used to) that
implementations of a specification are derivative works of that
specification (even though specific code snippets aren't copied or aren't
copyrightable).
So if Apache intends to implement a specification for an industry standard,
it would be wise to ask if that specification is available under an open
source license.
I leave for another thread the issues about patent licenses for those
software standards.
/Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:43 PM
> To: oscar-dev@incubator.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
>
> On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > I think I would get it from the Specification itself,
> "Legal Terms
> > > and Conditions regarding the Specification";
> >
> > Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my
> impression is,
> > that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to
> any *software
> > implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> > latter.
>
> Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between
> the Specification and any donation of implementation.
>
> And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
>
> Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the
> clear, what is the problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut
> and await further announcements.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> > Conditions regarding the Specification";
>
> Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
> that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
> implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> latter.
Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between the Specification
and any donation of implementation.
And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the clear, what is the
problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut and await further announcements.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 19:51, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
SO SORRY, I must be too tired...
Don't know why I referencing Justin, when **Roy** is the one who is concerned.
My deepest apologies.
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 19:51, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
SO SORRY, I must be too tired...
Don't know why I referencing Justin, when **Roy** is the one who is concerned.
My deepest apologies.
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>>>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
>>> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the
>>> existing code
>>> base.
>>>
>>> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
>>> Incubation
>>> of the project?
>>
>>
>>
>> My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
>> I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
>> incubator members already indicating support.
>
>
> I take it this is the green light for us to start collecting the
> required CLAs, Grants and knocking on infrastructure's door? I'll kick
> off the process.
Great, it sounds like Alex will get on infra and I'll facilitate Richard
Hall's completion of a Software Grant and CLA and, once SVN infra is
ready and his doco is in, make sure he has the necessary config to get
his development line committed.
Enrique
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>>
>>
>> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
>> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the
>> existing code
>> base.
>>
>> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
>> Incubation
>> of the project?
>
>
> My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
> I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
> incubator members already indicating support.
I take it this is the green light for us to start collecting the
required CLAs, Grants and knocking on infrastructure's door? I'll kick
off the process.
Thanks guys,
Alex
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
>> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
>> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing
> code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin
> Incubation
> of the project?
My concerns were aimed at graduation, not beginning incubation.
I already created the mailing lists based on the number of
incubator members already indicating support.
....Roy
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
> of the project?
Code grant received before code accepted/imported.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQt6jdJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ2CAP/Q5JDT+J1OE2kV9fYmLfHeshylLimSNpu
vplde7iB6O7dhdUlyKn3/6WIupfPIY+iGV8C10GptliuPIMqln7gHVmaAudafEwN
7qhJUXWa7+vxA5Ch7HCi9wKJF/NYzgTu6VklqnxwHuwiHAY7AMzSQI+z3HqHXro9
1jBmqFHoma0=
=Kiod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
> accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
> base.
>
> Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
> of the project?
Code grant received before code accepted/imported.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQt6jdJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ2CAP/Q5JDT+J1OE2kV9fYmLfHeshylLimSNpu
vplde7iB6O7dhdUlyKn3/6WIupfPIY+iGV8C10GptliuPIMqln7gHVmaAudafEwN
7qhJUXWa7+vxA5Ch7HCi9wKJF/NYzgTu6VklqnxwHuwiHAY7AMzSQI+z3HqHXro9
1jBmqFHoma0=
=Kiod
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy,
> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
base.
Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
of the project?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Roy,
> I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
> contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
Every contributor will have to submit a CLA, or that code cannot be
accepted. We will also ask for a Software Grant to cover the existing code
base.
Does this resolve your concerns, at least sufficiently to begin Incubation
of the project?
--- Noel
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to
> CREATE,
> or right to implement.
It applies to all of those things listed in the quote from the
Apache license that I sent:
to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works
which of course is why I included that explicitly in our license.
> Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at
> the
> specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what
> the
> Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
> We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document.
> Nothing
> to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
I don't believe that is true of the suggested code donation.
In any case, if you have the specification in front of you and
you read it while typing its contents into your code, that is copying.
> The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
> standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To
> me, this
> sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain
> Java
> platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for
> the
> developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written
> authorization of
> Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
> Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API
> Design
> Specification")
Yes, Sun's copyright notice explicitly grants those rights to
anyone who develops an independent implementation and passes the
official TCK, as well as additional rights to implement experiments,
both of which have been used by Geronimo. Negotiating those rights
has been 99% of our Apache activity within the JCP.
Likewise, the JSPA and the specification license contains a specific
licenses to any patents owned by the EG that are necessarily
infringed by implementations, such that we don't get screwed by
submarine patents.
In contrast, the OSGi statement contains no license and explicitly
says that the alliance companies may sue us for implementing it.
Furthermore, the members agreement only supplies OSGi the right to
sublicense to the alliance members, and thus just having OSGi
agree to redistribution is not enough.
Does that make the problem clear?
> I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the
> Membership
> agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and
> have not
> agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any
> "imported"
> codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members.
> I am
> willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary.
> So if
> that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not
> put
> everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign
> the
> ICLA.".
I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
> Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I
> am
> getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let
> them come
> to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the
> membership
> agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
> publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are
> parts of
> that specification that are not free of patent claims."
>
> Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
The OASIS WSS approach consists of a group of companies that have
publicly stated they will provide patent licenses *if* anything
in their specs turn out to be covered by their patents. The license
specifically says
1. Each Author grants permission to OASIS and OASIS members the
right to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
Web Services Security ("WS-Security") draft specification and to
authorize others to do the foregoing, in any medium without fee
or royalty, for the purpose of further developing the WS-Security
specification in the WSSTC as set forth in the draft WSS TC charter.
and in particular "authorize others to do the foregoing". That is
a copyright license. It goes on to say:
2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licenseable,
non-transferable license to third parties, under royalty-free
and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author
deems necessary to implement required portokions of the
WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal license is
granted.
which *might* be an issue *if* any of those authors did have a
necessary patent claim *and* refused to give royalty-free terms.
As far as we have been able to determine, they have no such patents
and thus we cannot possibly infringe them, nor would we be subject
to penalties if they did have patents because we asked them and
they did not say "stop".
In contrast, the OSGi approach does not grant us permission to do
anything and explicitly states that others (including members)
may sue us for infringement. We have no permission to implement
under the OSGi "approach". Therefore, we need to obtain permission,
and our standard form for doing so is the CLA.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to
> CREATE,
> or right to implement.
It applies to all of those things listed in the quote from the
Apache license that I sent:
to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works
which of course is why I included that explicitly in our license.
> Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at
> the
> specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what
> the
> Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
> We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document.
> Nothing
> to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
I don't believe that is true of the suggested code donation.
In any case, if you have the specification in front of you and
you read it while typing its contents into your code, that is copying.
> The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
> standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To
> me, this
> sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain
> Java
> platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for
> the
> developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written
> authorization of
> Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
> Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API
> Design
> Specification")
Yes, Sun's copyright notice explicitly grants those rights to
anyone who develops an independent implementation and passes the
official TCK, as well as additional rights to implement experiments,
both of which have been used by Geronimo. Negotiating those rights
has been 99% of our Apache activity within the JCP.
Likewise, the JSPA and the specification license contains a specific
licenses to any patents owned by the EG that are necessarily
infringed by implementations, such that we don't get screwed by
submarine patents.
In contrast, the OSGi statement contains no license and explicitly
says that the alliance companies may sue us for implementing it.
Furthermore, the members agreement only supplies OSGi the right to
sublicense to the alliance members, and thus just having OSGi
agree to redistribution is not enough.
Does that make the problem clear?
> I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the
> Membership
> agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and
> have not
> agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any
> "imported"
> codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members.
> I am
> willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary.
> So if
> that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not
> put
> everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign
> the
> ICLA.".
I said every contributor must sign the CLA. If there are no
contributors (or only one) then that should be an easy process.
> Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I
> am
> getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let
> them come
> to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the
> membership
> agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
> publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are
> parts of
> that specification that are not free of patent claims."
>
> Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
The OASIS WSS approach consists of a group of companies that have
publicly stated they will provide patent licenses *if* anything
in their specs turn out to be covered by their patents. The license
specifically says
1. Each Author grants permission to OASIS and OASIS members the
right to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
Web Services Security ("WS-Security") draft specification and to
authorize others to do the foregoing, in any medium without fee
or royalty, for the purpose of further developing the WS-Security
specification in the WSSTC as set forth in the draft WSS TC charter.
and in particular "authorize others to do the foregoing". That is
a copyright license. It goes on to say:
2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licenseable,
non-transferable license to third parties, under royalty-free
and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author
deems necessary to implement required portokions of the
WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal license is
granted.
which *might* be an issue *if* any of those authors did have a
necessary patent claim *and* refused to give royalty-free terms.
As far as we have been able to determine, they have no such patents
and thus we cannot possibly infringe them, nor would we be subject
to penalties if they did have patents because we asked them and
they did not say "stop".
In contrast, the OSGi approach does not grant us permission to do
anything and explicitly states that others (including members)
may sue us for infringement. We have no permission to implement
under the OSGi "approach". Therefore, we need to obtain permission,
and our standard form for doing so is the CLA.
....Roy
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 18:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Under international copyright law,
> recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
> to redistribute or create derivative works.
You are probably better accustomed to international law than I am. IANAL. But,
AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to CREATE,
or right to implement.
Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at the
specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what the
Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document. Nothing
to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To me, this
sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain Java
platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for the
developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written authorization of
Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API Design
Specification")
AND the notice in the JavaMail Specification is more explicit about
prohibiting its use, than the corresponding disclaimers of the OSGi
specification;
<quote src="JavaMail API Design Specification">
This product or documentation is protected by copyright and distributed under
licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and decompilation.
</quote>
> The OSGi membership
> agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
> retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
> to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
> to other MEMBERS.
I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the Membership
agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and have not
agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any "imported"
codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members. I am
willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary. So if
that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not put
everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign the
ICLA.".
Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I am
getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let them come
to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the membership
agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are parts of
that specification that are not free of patent claims."
Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
Now at the end, I see Enrique has additional good answers, and I hope those
are enough to satisfy Justin's concerns. Feel free to ignore the above ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 20:22, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> > Conditions regarding the Specification";
>
> Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
> that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
> implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
> latter.
Yes, that is why I asked Roy to make a distinction between the Specification
and any donation of implementation.
And since R4 is not out, this debate seems a bit "off edge".
Assuming R4 is more explicit, and Richard Hall is in the clear, what is the
problem? Well. I will keep my mouth shut and await further announcements.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 17 July 2005 18:36, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Under international copyright law,
> recipients must gain permission from the copyright owner in order
> to redistribute or create derivative works.
You are probably better accustomed to international law than I am. IANAL. But,
AFAIK, Copyright only applies to the RIGHT to COPY. Not the RIGHT to CREATE,
or right to implement.
Now, we are first and foremost looking at a scenario, where WE look at the
specification, READ it, and MAKE something else that behaves as what the
Specification describes. Where is the COPY in question?
We won't copy the material provided, i.e. the specification document. Nothing
to copy, hence no Copyrights applies.
The only piece that are up for debate is the Java interfaces and other
standard classes which are required to fulfill the Specification. To me, this
sounds similar to the Sun restrictions on redistribution of certain Java
platform extensions, that Geronimo re-implements as a convenience for the
developers and edge-users. Does Geronimo have "prior written authorization of
Sun and its licensors" for each of the APIs re-implemented, as the
Specification Copyright notice states? (template from "JavaMail API Design
Specification")
AND the notice in the JavaMail Specification is more explicit about
prohibiting its use, than the corresponding disclaimers of the OSGi
specification;
<quote src="JavaMail API Design Specification">
This product or documentation is protected by copyright and distributed under
licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and decompilation.
</quote>
> The OSGi membership
> agreement, included below, explicitly states that the MEMBERS
> retain ownership on what they do and OSGi is only given the right
> to license their employee's work and to sublicense any combined work
> to other MEMBERS.
I agree that this is not "friendly". But I am not arguing about the Membership
agreement at all. It is not ASF's concern, as it is not a member and have not
agree to any of that. That is something between the owner of any "imported"
codebases (such as Oscar) and the OSGi Alliance and the other members. I am
willing to start an implementation from scratch if that is necessary. So if
that is the your concern, Justin, then please spell that out and not put
everything into one basket and a categorical "Every member must sign the
ICLA.".
Honestly, looking at your responses for TSIK and this OSGi proposal, I am
getting mixed signals. On one side; "Don't search for problems. Let them come
to us, and we react on it." On the other; "If we look into the membership
agreement, that one or more individuals has with the organization that
publishes the specification, then it is *possible* that there are parts of
that specification that are not free of patent claims."
Why is OSGi's approach different from OASIS??
Now at the end, I see Enrique has additional good answers, and I hope those
are enough to satisfy Justin's concerns. Feel free to ignore the above ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
latter.
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
Re: Oscar OSGi Project and required CLAs
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
> I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and
> Conditions regarding the Specification";
Niclas, I may be wrong, so fix me, if required. But my impression is,
that those terms apply to the *specification* and not to any *software
implementing the specification*, and you seem to understand the
latter.
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org