You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> on 2020/01/02 01:54:26 UTC
Re: Updating https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:44 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 30/12/2019 04:50, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:44 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2019 19:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>> Mark Struberg wrote on Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 11:37:02 +0100:
>>>>> A.) It is imo pretty much clear from a legal point that changing a license
>>>>> means it is not that license anymore. Thus one must legally change the
>>>>> license name. This is from a central european law position at least. But is
>>>>> this assumption correct around the globe?
>>>>
>>>> The patch does not change the terms and conditions between licensor and
>>>> licensee; therefore, it doesn't change the license; therefore, this question is
>>>> academic.
>>>>
>>>> The patch does change the license's user manual.
>>>>
>>>>> Am 27.12.2019 um 18:29 schrieb Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>:
>>>>>> +++ https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -185,4 +185,7 @@
>>>>>> + You may not change
>>>>>> + the terms and conditions of the license unless you also change
>>>>>> + the name of the license. See
>>>>>> + <https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/license#renaming>.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to clarify that the link added there is currently 404. The patch was
>>>> written on the assumption that, if it is accepted, a /foundation/marks/license
>>>> page would be written so the link would be valid.
>>>
>>> I thought I'd written some words on that so I assumed that the link
>>> linked to them. I'll see if I can find what I wrote previously and if it
>>> wasn't on the brand site, I'll add it.
>>
>> Yes please -- I think it will be helpful to see those as part of this
>> discussion.
>
> I'm not sure now if I wrote it but these are the words I was thinking of.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license <https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license>
>
> I'll add a cross-reference to that from the brand pages.
>
> I'd like to make the second paragraph more explicit. Something like:
> <quote>
> And if you adapt the license for your purposes, you must make sure that
> the phrases 'Apache License', 'Apache', or any confusingly similar
> references or parts that specifically refer to the Apache organization
> do not appear anywhere in your version of the license. The sole
> exception is that the license may contain a footnote (or similar) that
> your license derived and differs from the original provided by the ASF.
> </quote>
>
We should say that the footnote should specifically be outside the terms and conditions, where the name Apache must not appear.
I'd like to add here that we also tell people that they specifically must remove this title section from their modified license:
"Apache License
Version 2.0, January 2004
http://www.apache.org/licenses/"
And replace the title with their own title, and NOT refer to their license using the Apache name.
So to wrap up this part of the discussion, I'd like to see the "old mod-license text" and the "new mod-license text" so we can agree on what we are talking about.
Craig
> The intention of referencing this FAQ entry from the license appendix is
> to reduce the time we have to spend getting folks to rename their
> license after they take the ALv2, modify it and then call it "Apache ..."
>
> I think changing the Appendix will help but I appreciate that it may
> trigger other issues.
>
> Is there consensus to change the FAQ entry for now and see if having a
> clearer FAQ entry to point to helps and revisit the change in the
> appendix text at a latter date if it is still considered necessary?
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Updating https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Here is the proposed text for discussion. It might be added to the license itself or might be included in the FAQ.
APPENDIX: How to create a derived license
To create a derived license, choose a name for the license that does not include the word Apache.
Remove the name, version, date, and url from the text.
Prepend your own name, version, date, and url to the text.
Remove the Appendixes.
Add terms and conditions of your own between the lines:
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
and
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
And I agree with Mark that something like this would be appropriate for the FAQ:
> If you adapt the license for your purposes, you must make sure that
> the phrases 'Apache License', 'Apache', or any confusingly similar
> references or parts that specifically refer to the Apache organization
> do not appear anywhere in your version of the license. The sole
> exception is that the license may contain an Appendix (or similar) that
> your license derived and differs from the original provided by the ASF.
Craig
> On Jan 2, 2020, at 11:44 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 5:54 PM Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:44 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/12/2019 04:50, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:44 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28/12/2019 19:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>
>> Mark Struberg wrote on Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 11:37:02 +0100:
>>
>> A.) It is imo pretty much clear from a legal point that changing a license
>> means it is not that license anymore. Thus one must legally change the
>> license name. This is from a central european law position at least. But is
>> this assumption correct around the globe?
>>
>>
>> The patch does not change the terms and conditions between licensor and
>> licensee; therefore, it doesn't change the license; therefore, this question is
>> academic.
>>
>> The patch does change the license's user manual.
>>
>> Am 27.12.2019 um 18:29 schrieb Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>:
>>
>> +++ https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt (working copy)
>> @@ -185,4 +185,7 @@
>> + You may not change
>> + the terms and conditions of the license unless you also change
>> + the name of the license. See
>> + <https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/license#renaming>.
>>
>>
>> I'd like to clarify that the link added there is currently 404. The patch was
>> written on the assumption that, if it is accepted, a /foundation/marks/license
>> page would be written so the link would be valid.
>>
>>
>> I thought I'd written some words on that so I assumed that the link
>> linked to them. I'll see if I can find what I wrote previously and if it
>> wasn't on the brand site, I'll add it.
>>
>>
>> Yes please -- I think it will be helpful to see those as part of this
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure now if I wrote it but these are the words I was thinking of.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license
>>
>> I'll add a cross-reference to that from the brand pages.
>>
>> I'd like to make the second paragraph more explicit. Something like:
>> <quote>
>> And if you adapt the license for your purposes, you must make sure that
>> the phrases 'Apache License', 'Apache', or any confusingly similar
>> references or parts that specifically refer to the Apache organization
>> do not appear anywhere in your version of the license. The sole
>> exception is that the license may contain a footnote (or similar) that
>> your license derived and differs from the original provided by the ASF.
>> </quote>
>>
>> We should say that the footnote should specifically be outside the terms and conditions, where the name Apache must not appear.
>>
>> I'd like to add here that we also tell people that they specifically must remove this title section from their modified license:
>> "Apache License
>>
>> Version 2.0, January 2004
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/"
>>
>> And replace the title with their own title, and NOT refer to their license using the Apache name.
>
> FWIW: this makes perfect sense to be added to the FAQ item Mark
> provided upthread. I'm +1 on something being added there along the
> lines of what you have above, Craig.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>> Craig
>>
>> The intention of referencing this FAQ entry from the license appendix is
>> to reduce the time we have to spend getting folks to rename their
>> license after they take the ALv2, modify it and then call it "Apache ..."
>>
>> I think changing the Appendix will help but I appreciate that it may
>> trigger other issues.
>>
>> Is there consensus to change the FAQ entry for now and see if having a
>> clearer FAQ entry to point to helps and revisit the change in the
>> appendix text at a latter date if it is still considered necessary?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> clr@apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Updating https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 5:54 PM Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:44 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 30/12/2019 04:50, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:44 AM Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 28/12/2019 19:03, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> Mark Struberg wrote on Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 11:37:02 +0100:
>
> A.) It is imo pretty much clear from a legal point that changing a license
> means it is not that license anymore. Thus one must legally change the
> license name. This is from a central european law position at least. But is
> this assumption correct around the globe?
>
>
> The patch does not change the terms and conditions between licensor and
> licensee; therefore, it doesn't change the license; therefore, this question is
> academic.
>
> The patch does change the license's user manual.
>
> Am 27.12.2019 um 18:29 schrieb Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>:
>
> +++ https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt (working copy)
> @@ -185,4 +185,7 @@
> + You may not change
> + the terms and conditions of the license unless you also change
> + the name of the license. See
> + <https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/license#renaming>.
>
>
> I'd like to clarify that the link added there is currently 404. The patch was
> written on the assumption that, if it is accepted, a /foundation/marks/license
> page would be written so the link would be valid.
>
>
> I thought I'd written some words on that so I assumed that the link
> linked to them. I'll see if I can find what I wrote previously and if it
> wasn't on the brand site, I'll add it.
>
>
> Yes please -- I think it will be helpful to see those as part of this
> discussion.
>
>
> I'm not sure now if I wrote it but these are the words I was thinking of.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license
>
> I'll add a cross-reference to that from the brand pages.
>
> I'd like to make the second paragraph more explicit. Something like:
> <quote>
> And if you adapt the license for your purposes, you must make sure that
> the phrases 'Apache License', 'Apache', or any confusingly similar
> references or parts that specifically refer to the Apache organization
> do not appear anywhere in your version of the license. The sole
> exception is that the license may contain a footnote (or similar) that
> your license derived and differs from the original provided by the ASF.
> </quote>
>
> We should say that the footnote should specifically be outside the terms and conditions, where the name Apache must not appear.
>
> I'd like to add here that we also tell people that they specifically must remove this title section from their modified license:
> "Apache License
>
> Version 2.0, January 2004
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/"
>
> And replace the title with their own title, and NOT refer to their license using the Apache name.
FWIW: this makes perfect sense to be added to the FAQ item Mark
provided upthread. I'm +1 on something being added there along the
lines of what you have above, Craig.
Thanks,
Roman.
> Craig
>
> The intention of referencing this FAQ entry from the license appendix is
> to reduce the time we have to spend getting folks to rename their
> license after they take the ALv2, modify it and then call it "Apache ..."
>
> I think changing the Appendix will help but I appreciate that it may
> trigger other issues.
>
> Is there consensus to change the FAQ entry for now and see if having a
> clearer FAQ entry to point to helps and revisit the change in the
> appendix text at a latter date if it is still considered necessary?
>
> Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org