You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> on 2005/07/25 22:46:29 UTC
Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
In it's first month+ of existence, Harmony has attracted quite a bit
of attention, and we are now settling down to resolve some of the
issues we've identified in the beginning. We have on our website our
proposed policy framework to monitor contributions and technology
contributions. This policy is in addition to the standard ASF policy
and we do not believe that it will cause any concerns. It will be
posted for review by the Apache Incubator PMC before it goes into
effect, but we're working to get the last nips and tucks done.
On the technology side, there's been a slow start, in part due to the
contribution framework getting established, but I plan to push hard
for contributions now that we're almost done and people can get a
sense of how things work.
We have the following outstanding issue that I will be talking to the
Apache Incubator PMC about - parts of the community have asked that
we change our default license for mail list contributions to a
license compatible with the GPL, as the Apache License is deemed
incompatible by the FSF. It's in our interest to ensure that we can
have the broadest participation possible, but also recognize that we
wish to balance that with the aspects of the Apache License that are
important to us. Expect more on this soon.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On July 26, 2005 8:04:57 AM +0200 Henning Schmiedehausen
<he...@apache.org> wrote:
> particular), I do strongly feel that we should not dilute the ASL by
> making "an exception" or "changing a default license".
+1. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> The problem we have run into is that there are community members who
> wish to have at least the work that comes out of mail list discussions
> to be able to be used in their GPL-ed code. Now, it's our interest as
> a project to produce things with the widest usability, and wish to
> ensure that the "free software" communities are able to fully
> participate in what we are doing, and be able to take the results of
> our architecture work and implement themselves, to make more software
> interoperable.
1.) I must admit, that I wasn't aware, that mailing list postings are
subject to copyrights and licenses. However, now that I get used to the
thought, my impression is this: If any license does apply, then the
first license I would think of, is ASL2. In particular, if all other
mailing lists have this license. In other words, a different license
seems to me an actual reason for confusion.
2.) I am no legal expert, but if a user posts some code to a mailing
list, then I would assume, that he's still the copyright holder (if the
posting is copyrightable at all). But if so, then he may as well choose
to post or use the same code somewhere else under a different license.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On July 28, 2005 2:20:03 PM -0400 "Geir Magnusson Jr."
> <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> The discussion is related to creating a policy for contributions
>> made to
>> the *mail list* that works for everyone.
>>
>
> No, that's not how it works.
That's not how what works?
> Changing the license terms for contributions posted to the mailing
> list to only be X11 licensed (for example) would mean that we may
> not be able to commit it to the tree under the ALv2 license.
Yes, that is indeed the rub.
geir
>
> For example, if someone (not a committer) submits a patch to the
> mailing list and you have switched the list's licensing terms to
> X11 (which does not include patent protections), it then means that
> I can't commit that patch to our tree without requiring a
> *separate* authorization under ALv2. However, if the mailing list
> is as defined in ALv2, then the act of contributing grants the
> necessary terms. -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On July 28, 2005 2:20:03 PM -0400 "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
wrote:
> The discussion is related to creating a policy for contributions made to
> the *mail list* that works for everyone.
No, that's not how it works. Changing the license terms for contributions
posted to the mailing list to only be X11 licensed (for example) would mean
that we may not be able to commit it to the tree under the ALv2 license.
For example, if someone (not a committer) submits a patch to the mailing
list and you have switched the list's licensing terms to X11 (which does
not include patent protections), it then means that I can't commit that
patch to our tree without requiring a *separate* authorization under ALv2.
However, if the mailing list is as defined in ALv2, then the act of
contributing grants the necessary terms. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On July 28, 2005 12:34:02 PM -0400 "Geir Magnusson Jr."
> <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> The modified BSD, X11, and the Intel license are GPL compatible :)
>>
>
> EDONTCARE.
>
> The license on our projects is ALv2. It isn't X11 or BSD or
> anything else. (Not to mention, they have *substantially* weaker
> protections than ALv2.)
>
> Attempting to move Apache Harmony to be licensed by anything other
> than ALv2 should be rejected out-of-hand. Furthermore, we should
> not be creating licensing confusion because the GPL folks think
> it's a good idea. -- justin
Note that we're not talking about changing the license on our
project. Please try to include enough context so that it's not
misleading.
The discussion is related to creating a policy for contributions made
to the *mail list* that works for everyone. No decisions have been
made.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On July 28, 2005 12:34:02 PM -0400 "Geir Magnusson Jr."
<ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> The modified BSD, X11, and the Intel license are GPL compatible :)
EDONTCARE.
The license on our projects is ALv2. It isn't X11 or BSD or anything else.
(Not to mention, they have *substantially* weaker protections than ALv2.)
Attempting to move Apache Harmony to be licensed by anything other than
ALv2 should be rejected out-of-hand. Furthermore, we should not be
creating licensing confusion because the GPL folks think it's a good idea.
-- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 26, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> While in general I try to steer clear from licensing discussions these
> days (been too long a part of the Linux crowd in general and LKML in
> particular), I do strongly feel that we should not dilute the ASL by
> making "an exception" or "changing a default license".
>
> The good thing about the ASL (unlike GPL) is, that it does not scare
> commercial adopters and contributors away. Having something "GPL
> compatible" means IMHO that some of these will be advised by their
> lawyers not to come to Harmony.
The modified BSD, X11, and the Intel license are GPL compatible :)
>
> Most people that advocate GPL or a GPL-like license over the ASL
> want to
> "make sure that their code cannot be exploited by commercial companies
> to make a buck from it". Which is a political position that IMHO is
> not
> compatible with the whole idea of the ASF.
>
> I'd like to point out the last sentence of
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
> "The ASF will not dual-license our software because such licenses make
> it impossible to determine the conditions under which we have
> agreed to
> collaborate on a collective product, and are thus contrary to the
> Apache
> spirit of open, collaborative development among individuals, industry,
> and nonprofit organizations."
>
> And personally, I'd like to keep it that way. Less politics, rough
> consensus and running code. If we change any part of a project away
> from
> ASL and towards a "GPL compatible license", then we will sooner or
> later
> enter a flamew^Wdiscussion about some contribution on the mailing list
> that was intended by the author as a "poison pill" into our code base.
>
First, understand what we are doing. The Harmony project code will
generally be under the Apache License v2 (or subsequent
versions...). Period. We may get pieces that are under compatible
licenses (such as MPL), just like other projects do, but we do want
to limit that as much as possible.
The issue we are dealing with is the default license for the mail
list. Right now, it's ALv2, just like every other list is,
implicitly. (We made it explicit). What I didn't want to have
happen is have someone later say "hey, that code that I submitted on
the mail list was intended to be under the GPL - you didn't make it
clear"
The problem we have run into is that there are community members who
wish to have at least the work that comes out of mail list
discussions to be able to be used in their GPL-ed code. Now, it's
our interest as a project to produce things with the widest
usability, and wish to ensure that the "free software" communities
are able to fully participate in what we are doing, and be able to
take the results of our architecture work and implement themselves,
to make more software interoperable.
geir
> Been there, got burned and no T-Shirt. :-)
>
> Best regards
> Henning
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:46 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> In it's first month+ of existence, Harmony has attracted quite a bit
>> of attention, and we are now settling down to resolve some of the
>> issues we've identified in the beginning. We have on our website our
>> proposed policy framework to monitor contributions and technology
>> contributions. This policy is in addition to the standard ASF policy
>> and we do not believe that it will cause any concerns. It will be
>> posted for review by the Apache Incubator PMC before it goes into
>> effect, but we're working to get the last nips and tucks done.
>>
>> On the technology side, there's been a slow start, in part due to the
>> contribution framework getting established, but I plan to push hard
>> for contributions now that we're almost done and people can get a
>> sense of how things work.
>>
>> We have the following outstanding issue that I will be talking to the
>> Apache Incubator PMC about - parts of the community have asked that
>> we change our default license for mail list contributions to a
>> license compatible with the GPL, as the Apache License is deemed
>> incompatible by the FSF. It's in our interest to ensure that we can
>> have the broadest participation possible, but also recognize that we
>> wish to balance that with the aspects of the Apache License that are
>> important to us. Expect more on this soon.
>>
>> geir
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
While in general I try to steer clear from licensing discussions these
days (been too long a part of the Linux crowd in general and LKML in
particular), I do strongly feel that we should not dilute the ASL by
making "an exception" or "changing a default license".
The good thing about the ASL (unlike GPL) is, that it does not scare
commercial adopters and contributors away. Having something "GPL
compatible" means IMHO that some of these will be advised by their
lawyers not to come to Harmony.
Most people that advocate GPL or a GPL-like license over the ASL want to
"make sure that their code cannot be exploited by commercial companies
to make a buck from it". Which is a political position that IMHO is not
compatible with the whole idea of the ASF.
I'd like to point out the last sentence of
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
"The ASF will not dual-license our software because such licenses make
it impossible to determine the conditions under which we have agreed to
collaborate on a collective product, and are thus contrary to the Apache
spirit of open, collaborative development among individuals, industry,
and nonprofit organizations."
And personally, I'd like to keep it that way. Less politics, rough
consensus and running code. If we change any part of a project away from
ASL and towards a "GPL compatible license", then we will sooner or later
enter a flamew^Wdiscussion about some contribution on the mailing list
that was intended by the author as a "poison pill" into our code base.
Been there, got burned and no T-Shirt. :-)
Best regards
Henning
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 16:46 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> In it's first month+ of existence, Harmony has attracted quite a bit
> of attention, and we are now settling down to resolve some of the
> issues we've identified in the beginning. We have on our website our
> proposed policy framework to monitor contributions and technology
> contributions. This policy is in addition to the standard ASF policy
> and we do not believe that it will cause any concerns. It will be
> posted for review by the Apache Incubator PMC before it goes into
> effect, but we're working to get the last nips and tucks done.
>
> On the technology side, there's been a slow start, in part due to the
> contribution framework getting established, but I plan to push hard
> for contributions now that we're almost done and people can get a
> sense of how things work.
>
> We have the following outstanding issue that I will be talking to the
> Apache Incubator PMC about - parts of the community have asked that
> we change our default license for mail list contributions to a
> license compatible with the GPL, as the Apache License is deemed
> incompatible by the FSF. It's in our interest to ensure that we can
> have the broadest participation possible, but also recognize that we
> wish to balance that with the aspects of the Apache License that are
> important to us. Expect more on this soon.
>
> geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> Been watching this debate and thought I should chime in that Sun
> has more than one community where the *source* is under one license
> (say LGPL for instance) but the *mail lists* are explicitly under
> more liberal terms of use. Why are you all assuming that they mail
> list must be under a source code license?
We want to make sure that [source] contributions that are from or
derived from the mail lists are able to be used in the project.
geir
>
> Danese
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be
>>>> under the
>>>> Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
>>>> something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
>>>> mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
>>>>
>>>> Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
>>>> projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a
>>>> license
>>>> we accept.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A
>>> formal
>>> reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since
>>> after 7 years on
>>> various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that
>>> contributions over
>>> mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's always been my assumption that all contributions are under
>> the Apache License, and we wished to make it explicit.
>>
>> With the Harmony list, we can certainly make it so - there are no
>> contributions by people not subscribed, so we can clearly make the
>> terms clear.
>>
>> We want to make sure that anything that comes into SVN has a clear
>> pedigree, both for copyright and any patent licenses owned by the
>> contributor.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any
>>> licensing
>>> attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list,
>>> would for sure
>>> be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy
>>> of..." is
>>> ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> IIUIC;
>>> If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly
>>> display, such
>>> display must contain any such claims. Without informing the
>>> audience, I have
>>> given up such claims.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's not true at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or
>>> not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Helm's alee... :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If this is case, then it is up to each mailing list participant
>>> to protect the
>>> works or forfeit the claims at his/her own discretion. Which "by
>>> default"
>>> then ends up being, chat along as much as you wish and anyone do
>>> whatever
>>> they like with the content of such discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if this is true. If it is, I don't think it makes
>> life better for us...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Niclas
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> Been watching this debate and thought I should chime in that Sun has
> more than one community where the *source* is under one license (say
> LGPL for instance) but the *mail lists* are explicitly under more
> liberal terms of use. Why are you all assuming that they mail list
> must be under a source code license?
It is a contributor's license, not a source code license.
It is currently left to common sense except when common sense
is obscured, at which point we slap
http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/community.txt
on the subscription info to make it clear.
Sun uses joint-copyright agreements from all contributors, so
the mailing list terms don't matter.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Been watching this debate and thought I should chime in that Sun has
more than one community where the *source* is under one license (say
LGPL for instance) but the *mail lists* are explicitly under more
liberal terms of use. Why are you all assuming that they mail list
must be under a source code license?
Danese
On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>
>> On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be under
>>> the
>>> Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
>>> something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
>>> mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
>>>
>>> Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
>>> projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a license
>>> we accept.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A
>> formal
>> reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since after
>> 7 years on
>> various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that
>> contributions over
>> mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
>>
>
> It's always been my assumption that all contributions are under the
> Apache License, and we wished to make it explicit.
>
> With the Harmony list, we can certainly make it so - there are no
> contributions by people not subscribed, so we can clearly make the
> terms clear.
>
> We want to make sure that anything that comes into SVN has a clear
> pedigree, both for copyright and any patent licenses owned by the
> contributor.
>
>
>>
>> Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any
>> licensing
>> attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list, would
>> for sure
>> be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy
>> of..." is
>> ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure about that.
>
>
>> IIUIC;
>> If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly
>> display, such
>> display must contain any such claims. Without informing the
>> audience, I have
>> given up such claims.
>>
>
> That's not true at all.
>
>
>>
>> IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or not.
>>
>
> Helm's alee... :)
>
>
>>
>> If this is case, then it is up to each mailing list participant to
>> protect the
>> works or forfeit the claims at his/her own discretion. Which "by
>> default"
>> then ends up being, chat along as much as you wish and anyone do
>> whatever
>> they like with the content of such discussion.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure if this is true. If it is, I don't think it makes
> life better for us...
>
> geir
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be under the
>> Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
>> something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
>> mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
>>
>> Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
>> projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a license
>> we accept.
>>
>
> I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A formal
> reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since after
> 7 years on
> various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that
> contributions over
> mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
It's always been my assumption that all contributions are under the
Apache License, and we wished to make it explicit.
With the Harmony list, we can certainly make it so - there are no
contributions by people not subscribed, so we can clearly make the
terms clear.
We want to make sure that anything that comes into SVN has a clear
pedigree, both for copyright and any patent licenses owned by the
contributor.
>
> Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any
> licensing
> attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list, would
> for sure
> be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy
> of..." is
> ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
>
I'm not sure about that.
> IIUIC;
> If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly display,
> such
> display must contain any such claims. Without informing the
> audience, I have
> given up such claims.
That's not true at all.
>
> IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or not.
Helm's alee... :)
>
> If this is case, then it is up to each mailing list participant to
> protect the
> works or forfeit the claims at his/her own discretion. Which "by
> default"
> then ends up being, chat along as much as you wish and anyone do
> whatever
> they like with the content of such discussion.
>
I'm not sure if this is true. If it is, I don't think it makes life
better for us...
geir
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> Could we not make it a slam dunk by putting some text in the
> confirmation email sent when you subscribe to the mailing list saying
> "you hereby agree that all email sent to this address are implicitly
> licensed as ASL2"?
Yes. <http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/community.txt>
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>
>> ASF mailing lists are protected to some degree by the community's
>> acceptance that the work done on those lists will be distributed
>> under the Apache license. We have a legal argument (not a slam dunk)
>> that nobody could possibly participate on one of our lists without
>> knowing that the products we produce are under the Apache License,
>> and therefore a person posting code would not be able to claim
>> damages for infringing their copyright on redistribution. However,
>> that doesn't mean they lose their copyright -- they can still
>> prevent us from using the code in future releases.
>>
>
> Could we not make it a slam dunk by putting some text in the
> confirmation email sent when you subscribe to the mailing list saying
> "you hereby agree that all email sent to this address are implicitly
> licensed as ASL2"?
That is the plan for Apache Harmony - plus a monthly reminder. I was
going to then proselytize that to the rest of the ASF.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> ASF mailing lists are protected to some degree by the community's
> acceptance that the work done on those lists will be distributed
> under the Apache license. We have a legal argument (not a slam dunk)
> that nobody could possibly participate on one of our lists without
> knowing that the products we produce are under the Apache License,
> and therefore a person posting code would not be able to claim
> damages for infringing their copyright on redistribution. However,
> that doesn't mean they lose their copyright -- they can still
> prevent us from using the code in future releases.
Could we not make it a slam dunk by putting some text in the
confirmation email sent when you subscribe to the mailing list saying
"you hereby agree that all email sent to this address are implicitly
licensed as ASL2"?
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
>> The FSF demands copyright ownership on all code - which means
>> that they don't allow their contributions to be available
>> under any other license. In contrast, the ASF only asks for
>> a copyright license and we don't care what other licenses you
>> grant other people.
IIRC, the FSF assignment gives back to the author a license to
do whatever they want with their contribution, including making
a non-exclusive license to the ASF under the Apache License.
I would have to check the assignment form to be sure, though.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> The FSF demands copyright ownership on all code - which means
> that they don't allow their contributions to be available
> under any other license. In contrast, the ASF only asks for
> a copyright license and we don't care what other licenses you
> grant other people.
So code submitted to the list would either be available to everyone by
default, or must be labeled as NOT A CONTRIBUTION so that an exclusive
copyright can be transferred to the FSF?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On August 1, 2005 2:33:51 AM +0800 Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>
wrote:
> Isn't it possible that the ASF mailing lists and policies stay the way
> they are, and that each of the Harmony contributors provide a LGPL
> license separately for all code/patches provided (in advance or each
> post) for the GPL peeps to be able to use the material and output of
> such discussions ??
That won't work if the intention is for the code to enter a FSF code
repository. The FSF demands copyright ownership on all code - which means
that they don't allow their contributions to be available under any other
license. In contrast, the ASF only asks for a copyright license and we
don't care what other licenses you grant other people.
This is not to mention that certain countries (such as Germany) forbid
copyright transfer entirely. I have no idea what the FSF does for its
German contributors. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 01 August 2005 02:05, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Having our codebase in SVN under anything
> > but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter.
>
> Yeah, it would be a shame if we had to move the SVN repository to
> somewhere else. Maybe we should just hope we keep harmony bug free till
> the ASF and FSF board come to an agreement how to handle the
> incompatibility. It looks like it won't be that hard since everybody now
> at least sees what the subtle issues with the patent termination clause
> are and they seem to be actually talking. Creative legal thinking seems
> to be popular with geeks so lets hope for the best.
Isn't it possible that the ASF mailing lists and policies stay the way they
are, and that each of the Harmony contributors provide a LGPL license
separately for all code/patches provided (in advance or each post) for the
GPL peeps to be able to use the material and output of such discussions ??
Possible is also that JIRA is equipped to reject all submissions that doesn't
contain both license notices.
Sounds like a lot more straight forward process to me, than going via another
license, with potential legal hassle down the line.
MY 2sen.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 14:26 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why we
>>>>> are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is
>>>>> just to
>>>>> get on with business for now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing
>>>> list* so that your concerns were met.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle
>>> contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing.
>>>
>>
>> Then what do you propose?
>>
>
> Be a little subversive and just make MIT/X the policy for all new work
> submitted to harmony since that seems the only thing we can agree on.
> Seeing some of the debates I think the dual licensing GPL/ASL ideas
> won't really fly. MIT/X gets us going for now. And I don't believe any
> harmony contributor has a problem with it.
We're seeing scope creep here. The idea of the software in our SVN
being under anything but the Apache License won't fly.
I personally was happy to entertain ideas on how we might think about
working with contributions to the mailing list because the
collaboration between all communities is one of our goals. However,
you've been clear that you won't be participating in the actual
development of code here, so I'm not sure why you'd want the above.
As for getting contributions also available under a different
license, I do believe that we can create a community meme in which we
encourage contributors to also, separately, make contributions
available under MIT/X for those that would accept that that ask for it.
>
>
>> Having our codebase in SVN under anything
>> but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter.
>>
>
> Yeah, it would be a shame if we had to move the SVN repository to
> somewhere else.
We won't.
> Maybe we should just hope we keep harmony bug free till
> the ASF and FSF board come to an agreement how to handle the
> incompatibility. It looks like it won't be that hard since
> everybody now
> at least sees what the subtle issues with the patent termination
> clause
> are and they seem to be actually talking. Creative legal thinking
> seems
> to be popular with geeks so lets hope for the best.
Resolving these issues has always been our interest, Harmony
notwithstanding, so I'm hopeful that it will be a no-op one day.
geir
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 14:26 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >>> Why we
> >>> are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is
> >>> just to
> >>> get on with business for now.
> >>
> >> I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing
> >> list* so that your concerns were met.
> >
> > No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle
> > contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing.
>
> Then what do you propose?
Be a little subversive and just make MIT/X the policy for all new work
submitted to harmony since that seems the only thing we can agree on.
Seeing some of the debates I think the dual licensing GPL/ASL ideas
won't really fly. MIT/X gets us going for now. And I don't believe any
harmony contributor has a problem with it.
> Having our codebase in SVN under anything
> but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter.
Yeah, it would be a shame if we had to move the SVN repository to
somewhere else. Maybe we should just hope we keep harmony bug free till
the ASF and FSF board come to an agreement how to handle the
incompatibility. It looks like it won't be that hard since everybody now
at least sees what the subtle issues with the patent termination clause
are and they seem to be actually talking. Creative legal thinking seems
to be popular with geeks so lets hope for the best.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Geir,
>
> On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>
>>> When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would
>>> talk
>>> out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
>>> could and should just start cooperating on the technical level.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is our intention still.
>>
>
> Good. And I see Tom, David and you will be at Oscon together next
> week.
> Probably a good opportunity to get some results.
>
>
>>> Why we
>>> are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is
>>> just to
>>> get on with business for now.
>>>
>>
>> That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code
>> under the Apache License.
>>
>> I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing
>> list* so that your concerns were met.
>>
>
> No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle
> contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing.
Then what do you propose? Having our codebase in SVN under anything
but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi Geir,
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk
> > out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
> > could and should just start cooperating on the technical level.
>
> Yes, that is our intention still.
Good. And I see Tom, David and you will be at Oscon together next week.
Probably a good opportunity to get some results.
> > Why we
> > are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is
> > just to
> > get on with business for now.
>
> That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code
> under the Apache License.
>
> I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing
> list* so that your concerns were met.
No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle
contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk
> out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
> could and should just start cooperating on the technical level.
Yes, that is our intention still.
> Why we
> are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is
> just to
> get on with business for now.
That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code
under the Apache License.
I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing
list* so that your concerns were met.
> So that all projects wanting to cooperate
> could reuse any new work coming out of Harmony.
There are two kinds of work-product from Harmony, which reflect the
two stated goals, and even the two stated groupings of initial
contributors on the original proposal :
1) The modular implementation architecture for VM and class library -
this was what I think is our main collaboration point, and we can
share experience and define specifications with this license problem
being less of an issue.
2) The Apache-licensed implementation of said architecture.
> It seemed the simplest
> least controversial suggestion that would get us going without needing
> to bring up the old ASLv2/GPLv2 flamewars again.
>
> If you and others think we as Harmony community should not do that
> during incubation then maybe Apache isn't the place to do this harmony
> cooperation for now.
Apache is the place for Harmony.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Dear Roy,
Of course I have "used my own brain" to read the licenses, thought about
the incompatibilities and come to the conclusion that with a bit of good
will on all sides we could probably come up with some legal hacks to
circumvent the issues. And I am also surprized and frustrated that the
communication between ASF and FSF seemed to have been really bad for a
couple of years. And that is really puzzling to me indeed because in my
last 5 years of working with various FSF and GNU projects I have found
people very helpful and cooperative. You seem convinced that the FSF is
some evil entity completely unlike the ASF. But if you just talk to any
GNU hacker or phone the FSF office you will notice that they are real
people that have almost the same concerns as you about how to create an
environment where everybody can run, copy, distribute, study, change and
improve software together without fear of someone trying (through legal
or other means) to disrupt that community. If a mail server goes down
both a GNU and an Apache hacker cry from frustration. There have been
positive signs on both sides. The ASF and FSF seem to finally talk again
and try to explain their reasoning and legal interpretations. And that
is good to see. But rebuilding trust after such a long time of
misunderstandings on both sides about the intentions of the other takes
time.
When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk
out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
could and should just start cooperating on the technical level. Why we
are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is just to
get on with business for now. So that all projects wanting to cooperate
could reuse any new work coming out of Harmony. It seemed the simplest
least controversial suggestion that would get us going without needing
to bring up the old ASLv2/GPLv2 flamewars again.
If you and others think we as Harmony community should not do that
during incubation then maybe Apache isn't the place to do this harmony
cooperation for now.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 29 July 2005 21:14, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each
> source file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the
> thereby created Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under
> the MIT license, or under the MIT/ASL2 dual license [2]?
I have seen that somewhere in actual action.
But keep in mind, the license doesn't grant you the Copyright of the original
work (which even ASF doesn't own), so the added MIT license only applies to
the amendments. And I think it has been determined that CVS/SVN/diffs would
be good enough tools to figure out what is what.
So, the combined/derived work is licensed to the downstream users under MIT +
ASL licenses, not one or the other. Any ASF project that depend on BSD or MIT
licensed projects are expected to provide this information (what is what) in
NOTICE file(s) distributed with the releases, and the combined work has more
than one license attached to it.
I hope I manage to keep my tongue right...
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. <geirm <at> apache.org> writes:
>
> Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
>
> The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
>
Aha! As Geir was polite to try to explain to me what makes sublicensing
different from relicensing, let me have another try, this time with an even
simpler setup.
Let's say I am the sole, founding member of the hypothetical Non-native-speakers
Non-lawyers Union Of Fans Of The MIT Software License. Being a fundamentally
freedom loving organisation, in spirit very, very similar to the ASF itself, the
NNUOFOTMITSL only distributes software under the MIT license, and refuses to
distribute software under longer software licenses, citing hypothetical
scientific research that shows that most people do not understand software
licenses anyway as soon as they have more than 4 clauses. [1]
Alas, the NNUOFOTMITSL has by chance found out that the Apache Software
Foundation is an organisation that has produced a huge amount of Works of
extraordinary quality. Like many other big organisations, the NNUOFOTMITSL
would like to be able to to satisfy the needs of their customers/user/members
without confusing them by having a wild mix of long licenses that cover
different bits and pieces of those works. And the NNUOFOTMITSL would like to be
able to offer ASF's code in their MIT licensed works.
Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each source
file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the thereby created
Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under the MIT license, or
under the MIT/ASL2 dual license [2]?
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] I am sure that would be a fun field for psychology research.
[2] To satisfy 4.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:41 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
>
>
>> I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
>> but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that.
>>
>
> Roy,
>
> I have thought about that, and, speaking for myself, I'd like to
> thank you
> for being helpful for the past ten years. I would appreciate it
> very much
> if
> you'd continue being helpful, and continue showing respect for your
> fellow
> developers, as that is one of the things Apache is about[1] and one of
> things I
> find interesting about it.
>
> I have some trouble understanding the sublicensing provision of the
> Apache
> license v2, and I believe you were one of the persons drafting it, so
> I hope you
> can help me understand it better.
>
> From ASL2:
>
> [...]
>
> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> Object form,
> made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice
> that is
> included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the
> Appendix below).
>
> [...]
>
> 2. Grant of Copyright License. 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.
>
> I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source
> form and
> distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
> triple license (like Mozilla)
> on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
>
> Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitely
> wants to
> allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different
> license, to
> allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case
> it's the GPL,
> so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in
> some of their
> proprietary products, for example,
>
> Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
> i.e. to apply to
> all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
> to carry
> around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
> GPL2/ASL2 version
> on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
> carry the additional
> ASL around when they redistribute further.
>
> The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right,
> I live in
> Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents,
> I have my own
> license to use, and those that received the Works from me are
> protected by the
> liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite
> the termination
> provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL
> does not know the
> concept of patent termination.
>
> Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-about
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
> > with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
> > does not extend to sublicensing. personally speaking, i do not accept
> > new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> > boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache. it is very
> > difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
> > mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> > and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> > little fuzzy legally.
>
> IANAL, but I have read the Apache License.
>
> I'd suggest that you take a look at section 5 of the Apache License,
> Version 2.0. It is one paragraph, and not particularly dense. "any
> Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to
> the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License,
> without any additional terms or conditions."
>
> If that isn't specific enough, take a look at the definition of
> "Contribution" in section 1. "including but not limited to
> communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
> and issue tracking systems"
>
> And, what are the "terms and conditions of this License"? Section 2
> grants licensees the right to sublicense the copyrights held by each
> Contributor.
went away and looked up when sublicensing actually means legally. i
was using the term wrongly. apologies for the confusion.
> Unless you can figure out a way to explain how somebody can submit a
> patch to software without being aware of the license for that software,
> then this isn't very fuzzy to me. At all.
i agree that the ASL is clear.
the fuzziness i meant was the idea of a default license for a mailing
list. it's less clear that a user would reasonably expect that a patch
submitted for an apache project might end up being licensed under the
GPL (given that the FSF believes that ASL2 to be incompatible). IMHO
they'd need to give informed consent.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > On 7/30/05, Dalibor Topic <robilad <at> kaffe.org> wrote:
<snip>
> > IMHO the free software foundation's theory of implicit patent grants
> > being embedded in the GPL is quite novel.
>
> For a humanely readable description of how it works (by a patent
> attorney), see
> http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/opensourcesoftware/patentrisks/
(not sure i agree with some of that article but then again, that's
probably to be expected...)
IMHO the fundamental question is whether being able to use the
software (as opposed to copying) is actually a right guaranteed by the
GPL. i can't see that spelt out explicitly anywhere in the GPL (but it
is possible that i missed it). having the right to use software (or
any other invention) is something that is the provinance of patent
licenses, not copyright. GPL asserts that it is a copyright license
which may imply it does not intend to grant any patent rights.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 8/1/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2005 04:44, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On 7/31/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> > > Or is USA so much different from the rest of the world, where "in good
> > > faith", "intent of the law", "reasonable" and "common sense" still have
> > > legal meaning?
> >
> > You didn't read Groklaw in the last three years, didn't you? :-)
>
> Talking about groklaw.net?? Not on a daily basis... Got better things to do
> ;o)
>
> > Btw, what's the meaning of these words in the rest of the world,
> > thinking of legal cases like w2p.odem.org
> > (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/german_web_freedom_case/)
>
> Not sure what you are referring to here. AFAIK, Freedom of Speech in Germany
> have had the "nazi restriction" in the legal system since "Zero Hour", making
> references to (neo)nazism in most forms a crime.
> So, IMHO, this is a 'stupid law' (as I think it only fuel the fire) but it
> exists, is fairly explicit and have had political agenda for a long time.
> AFAIK, there are similar laws in France.
>
> > Nutzwerk vs. FFII (http://wiki.ffii.org/NutzwerkDns050729En)?
>
> Hard to get an idea of what this is all about, and can't really make a
> comment. FFII says that they are "harassed" by Nutzwerk, and won 2
> litigations, and a 3rd in progress. And that Nutzwerk tries to exploit the
> above law, to shut FFII down. But I may have misinterpreted the situation.
> Not sure what "lack of common sense" or similar you are referring to.
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 01 August 2005 04:44, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On 7/31/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> > Or is USA so much different from the rest of the world, where "in good
> > faith", "intent of the law", "reasonable" and "common sense" still have
> > legal meaning?
>
> You didn't read Groklaw in the last three years, didn't you? :-)
Talking about groklaw.net?? Not on a daily basis... Got better things to do
;o)
> Btw, what's the meaning of these words in the rest of the world,
> thinking of legal cases like w2p.odem.org
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/german_web_freedom_case/)
Not sure what you are referring to here. AFAIK, Freedom of Speech in Germany
have had the "nazi restriction" in the legal system since "Zero Hour", making
references to (neo)nazism in most forms a crime.
So, IMHO, this is a 'stupid law' (as I think it only fuel the fire) but it
exists, is fairly explicit and have had political agenda for a long time.
AFAIK, there are similar laws in France.
> Nutzwerk vs. FFII (http://wiki.ffii.org/NutzwerkDns050729En)?
Hard to get an idea of what this is all about, and can't really make a
comment. FFII says that they are "harassed" by Nutzwerk, and won 2
litigations, and a 3rd in progress. And that Nutzwerk tries to exploit the
above law, to shut FFII down. But I may have misinterpreted the situation.
Not sure what "lack of common sense" or similar you are referring to.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> Or is USA so much different from the rest of the world, where "in good faith",
> "intent of the law", "reasonable" and "common sense" still have legal
> meaning?
You didn't read Groklaw in the last three years, didn't you? :-)
Btw, what's the meaning of these words in the rest of the world,
thinking of legal cases like w2p.odem.org
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/german_web_freedom_case/) or
Nutzwerk vs. FFII (http://wiki.ffii.org/NutzwerkDns050729En)?
Jochen
--
What are the first steps on the moon, compared to your child's?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 01 August 2005 03:51, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Consider that Microsoft has its own implementation of .NET. Contributing
> to Mono would in no way prevent Microsoft from later enforcing its patents.
> It would simply spread the infection further and faster, particularly if
> people accepted your reading as legally applicable.
Hmmm...
Assuming for a second that this happened and it ended up in a court, I
personally think that "common sense" still exists among judges, and Microsoft
would have a hard time arguing that they have rights to charge for, or
prevent use of, something that was deliberately contributed to a Free
Software effort.
Analogy, if a company sent me 50,000 "gadgets" for free, instructing me that
when combined with an off-the-shelf "widget" could be installed in a car to
half the fuel consumption, would have a hard time convincing a judge that I
am infringing on any patents covering this setup.
Or is USA so much different from the rest of the world, where "in good faith",
"intent of the law", "reasonable" and "common sense" still have legal
meaning?
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > IMHO the free software foundation's theory of implicit
> > patent grants being embedded in the GPL is quite novel.
> For a humanely readable description of how it works (by
> a patent attorney), see
> http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/opensourcesoftware/patentrisks/
Amongst the apparent flaws in that is a disregard for submarine patents,
where the patent holder infects a codebase with patents with the intent of
later enforcing them. The belief that the patent holder cannot enforce the
patents because they are co-dependent on the codebase seems foolishly naive.
Consider that Microsoft has its own implementation of .NET. Contributing to
Mono would in no way prevent Microsoft from later enforcing its patents. It
would simply spread the infection further and faster, particularly if people
accepted your reading as legally applicable.
At least that is my understanding. Roy can certainly correct me if I am
wrong on particulars.
Not that ANY of this has anything to do with the subject.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin <at> gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/30/05, Dalibor Topic <robilad <at> kaffe.org> wrote:
> > Could you list the parts of the ASL2 are relevant for a license to be
> > ASL2-compatible?
>
> all of them :)
Thank you for your reply, Robert!
That clears up my confusion a bit.
> IMHO the free software foundation's theory of implicit patent grants
> being embedded in the GPL is quite novel.
For a humanely readable description of how it works (by a patent
attorney), see
http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/opensourcesoftware/patentrisks/
> > And as you've been kind
> > to explain, ASL2 is quite a different beast from some other BSD-like
> > licenses in various ways, for example in that it does not grant
> > sublicensing rights to patents.
>
> i'm a little confused...
Yeah, sorry about that. ;(
I read in Rosen's book that the AFL allows to
sublicense works under it freely, including granted patents, and he
creates the elaborate 'restriction stripping' setup I explored wth Roy
wrt to the Apache license here, in his book in chapter 10. I mentally
put the AFL in the BSD-like basket, and didn't check whether other
BSD-like license exist that address the patent grant questions in a
similar way, or at all. I should have mentioned the AFL explicitely.
cheers,
dalibor topic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On July 31, 2005 12:54:59 PM -0400 "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>
wrote:
> Uh ... it already does. We added that ages ago. Are you asking for a
> change, or just unaware?
Unaware. Doh. (Cue Guido's time machine.) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > i wonder whether JIRA could be persuaded to present some sort of click
> > through documentation reminding users that apache is only interested
> > in unencumbered original contributions.
> The SpamAssassin Bugzilla installation has custom code in place that
> presents 'click-through' license affirming that they've read the
> ALv2, etc, etc when posting an attachment.
> I bet JIRA could do the same.
Uh ... it already does. We added that ages ago. Are you asking for a
change, or just unaware?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 05:20:17PM +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i wonder whether JIRA could be persuaded to present some sort of click
> through documentation reminding users that apache is only interested
> in unencumbered original contributions.
The SpamAssassin Bugzilla installation has custom code in place that presents
a 'click-through' license affirming that they've read the ALv2, etc, etc when
posting an attachment. (Fuzzy on the precise details.)
I bet JIRA could do the same. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2005, at 12:20 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>>> . personally speaking, i do not accept
>>>>> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
>>>>> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list
>>>> anyway -
>>>> we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> it is very
>>>>> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license
>>>>> to a
>>>>> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be
>>>>> removed
>>>>> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all
>>>>> seems a
>>>>> little fuzzy legally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> i was thinking about new files with an ASL boiler plate at the
>>> top but
>>> if these are going to accepted via JIRA then this isn't an issue.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. We're going to be very, very careful with incoming
>> contributions, because the mass of applicable code out there - all
>> the source to Sun's releases, for example - increases the risk that
>> we'll get something a copyright owner didn't actually contribute...
>>
>
> +1
>
> i wonder whether JIRA could be persuaded to present some sort of click
> through documentation reminding users that apache is only interested
> in unencumbered original contributions.
our process will do our best to ensure that. Go read what we've been
doing. (Or look at the website... the proposed process is there)
>
> IIRC the biggest part of bootstrapping commons-math was assembling
> enough documentation to ensure everyone who wanted to contribute knew
> enough about copyright law to be able to vouch for their
> contributions. phil steitz is a good documentor and managed a
> (somewhat) similar process with commons-math. i wonder whether he
> might have some tips.
>
> i want to try to boostrap some kind of legal FAQ for committers and
> contributors (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-
> general/200507.mbox/%3cOF921CA2B8.E4CA5C66-ON8025704A.
> 002B1D51-8025704A.002BBC76@slc.co.uk%3e)
> but was considering the right place to bring up the subject (danny's
> emails in the linked thread pretty much sum up the idea). so maybe
> that'd be useful for harmony as well...
>
Sure. The more the merrier.
geir
> - robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
> >>> . personally speaking, i do not accept
> >>> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> >>> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
> >> we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
> >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >>> it is very
> >>> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license
> >>> to a
> >>> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> >>> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> >>> little fuzzy legally.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
> >>
> >
> > i was thinking about new files with an ASL boiler plate at the top but
> > if these are going to accepted via JIRA then this isn't an issue.
>
> Agreed. We're going to be very, very careful with incoming
> contributions, because the mass of applicable code out there - all
> the source to Sun's releases, for example - increases the risk that
> we'll get something a copyright owner didn't actually contribute...
+1
i wonder whether JIRA could be persuaded to present some sort of click
through documentation reminding users that apache is only interested
in unencumbered original contributions.
IIRC the biggest part of bootstrapping commons-math was assembling
enough documentation to ensure everyone who wanted to contribute knew
enough about copyright law to be able to vouch for their
contributions. phil steitz is a good documentor and managed a
(somewhat) similar process with commons-math. i wonder whether he
might have some tips.
i want to try to boostrap some kind of legal FAQ for committers and
contributors (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jakarta-general/200507.mbox/%3cOF921CA2B8.E4CA5C66-ON8025704A.002B1D51-8025704A.002BBC76@slc.co.uk%3e)
but was considering the right place to bring up the subject (danny's
emails in the linked thread pretty much sum up the idea). so maybe
that'd be useful for harmony as well...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2005, at 9:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>> IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
>>> problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
>>> given knowing consent.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it,
>>
>
> would the legalize be in the subscription message?
That was my intent, yes.
>
> (the one posted back to your email address)
>
>
>> and the monthly reminders should help. We should also put a
>> footer on each
>> message.
>>
>
> also need to be careful about moderation and think about mail-to-
> news bridges.
Indeed.
>
>
>>> with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
>>> does not extend to sublicensing?
>>>
>>
>> Sure it does.
>>
>
> my mistake :)
>
>
>>> . personally speaking, i do not accept
>>> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
>>> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
>>>
>>
>> We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
>> we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> it is very
>>> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license
>>> to a
>>> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
>>> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
>>> little fuzzy legally.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
>>
>
> i was thinking about new files with an ASL boiler plate at the top but
> if these are going to accepted via JIRA then this isn't an issue.
Agreed. We're going to be very, very careful with incoming
contributions, because the mass of applicable code out there - all
the source to Sun's releases, for example - increases the risk that
we'll get something a copyright owner didn't actually contribute...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> > IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
> > problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
> > given knowing consent.
>
> Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it,
would the legalize be in the subscription message?
(the one posted back to your email address)
> and the monthly reminders should help. We should also put a footer on each
> message.
also need to be careful about moderation and think about mail-to-news bridges.
> > with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
> > does not extend to sublicensing?
>
> Sure it does.
my mistake :)
> > . personally speaking, i do not accept
> > new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> > boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
>
> We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
> we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
<snip>
> > it is very
> > difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
> > mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> > and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> > little fuzzy legally.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
i was thinking about new files with an ASL boiler plate at the top but
if these are going to accepted via JIRA then this isn't an issue.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:36 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that
>>> started
>>> this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
>>>
>>
>> LOL. Yes, we're going to use JIRA. That's not the issue at all -
>> we're talking about the mailing list.
>>
>
> why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
> copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
> are not) to submit it through JIRA?
We could. However, one of the goals of harmony is a modular
implementation architecture, I think quite a bit of presentation of
code may be in situ for discussion purposes, as is natural. I
suppose we could ask that people also punch it into JIRA at the same
time. Sounds like a pain, though.
>
> once this becomes embedded as a social convention, the whole question
> of licenses for contributions through the mailing list would become
> moot.
>
> IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
> problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
> given knowing consent.
Well, you won't be able to subscribe without seeing it, and the
monthly reminders should help. We should also put a footer on each
message.
>
> with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
> does not extend to sublicensing?
Sure it does.
> . personally speaking, i do not accept
> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache.
We won't either, and we probably won't from the mailing list anyway -
we'd ask that this kind of contribution is made through JIRA.
Don't forget the core issue here (there's been a lot of participation
in this thread that didn't seem to be aware of the goal... probably
may fault for not being clearer...) : the core is that members of the
GNU Classpath project and other GPL-based communities would have a
problem using code that was on AL because of the FSFs claim that the
AL2 and GPL are incompatible. We were trying to solve that in a way
that enables the broadest participation in our architecture /
modularity work.
> it is very
> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> little fuzzy legally.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that started
>>>this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
>>
>>LOL. Yes, we're going to use JIRA. That's not the issue at all -
>>we're talking about the mailing list.
>
>
> why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
> copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
> are not) to submit it through JIRA?
>
> once this becomes embedded as a social convention, the whole question
> of licenses for contributions through the mailing list would become
> moot.
>
> IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
> problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
> given knowing consent.
>
> with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
> does not extend to sublicensing. personally speaking, i do not accept
> new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
> boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache. it is very
> difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
> mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
> and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
> little fuzzy legally.
IANAL, but I have read the Apache License.
I'd suggest that you take a look at section 5 of the Apache License,
Version 2.0. It is one paragraph, and not particularly dense. "any
Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to
the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License,
without any additional terms or conditions."
If that isn't specific enough, take a look at the definition of
"Contribution" in section 1. "including but not limited to
communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
and issue tracking systems"
And, what are the "terms and conditions of this License"? Section 2
grants licensees the right to sublicense the copyrights held by each
Contributor.
Unless you can figure out a way to explain how somebody can submit a
patch to software without being aware of the license for that software,
then this isn't very fuzzy to me. At all.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > > may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that started
> > > this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
> > LOL. Yes, we're going to use JIRA. That's not the issue at all -
> > we're talking about the mailing list.
> why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
> copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
> are not) to submit it through JIRA?
Either way, the AL is applied. The only difference between the mailing list
and JIRA is that JIRA allows us to place an explicit notice at the point of
posting.
The underlying problem is the FSF claim that the AL and the GPL are not
compatible. The ASF response to this claim is
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 7:36 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > may i suggest that a practical workaround for the issue (that started
> > this debate) would be to ask all contributors to use jira.
>
> LOL. Yes, we're going to use JIRA. That's not the issue at all -
> we're talking about the mailing list.
why not ask anyone who posts a contribution significant enough to be
copyrightable (AIUI very small patches just one or two lines probably
are not) to submit it through JIRA?
once this becomes embedded as a social convention, the whole question
of licenses for contributions through the mailing list would become
moot.
IMHO the whole concept of a default license for a mailing list is
problematic. it's hard to see how we could ensure that users have
given knowing consent.
with the ASL2, apache is covered through the license but AIUI this
does not extend to sublicensing. personally speaking, i do not accept
new files contributed through the lists which do not have the ASL2
boiler plate at the top. this way is common at apache. it is very
difficult to see how a user posting code with a specific license to a
mailing list is given knowing consent for that license to be removed
and replaced by a different license by a third party. it all seems a
little fuzzy legally.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the
> MIT
> license specifically lacks to meet the terms?
The parts that aren't in the ASL2, particularly in regards to
retaining the NOTICE file's notices.
>> Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of
>> the original work remain intact.
>
> OK. I am pretty new to the concept of sublicensing, so please bear
> with me
> while I try to figure out what the limits are. I've already seen that
> different Academic licenses have different ways to go about
> sublicensing,
> which is somewhat confusing.
You have Larry's book, right?
> Is there some FAQ from the ASF on how the Apache Software License 2.0
> works in practice?
No, we prefer to have people read the license itself.
> I'd imagine that to be a regular question for
> companies and individuals alike, who wish to reuse ASF's software in
> their own solutions, and are freshly starting to figure out the
> licensing framework within which the ASF operates.
>
> "Make money fast by creating propretary forks of ASFs software", that
> sort of stuff. ;)
They can afford a lawyer who an read it for them.
>> Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work.
>
> OK. Then let me try something else, a bit more creative, that weaves
> the Apache code together with my work.
>
> Let's say I, in a fit of Art, use my webcam to create a mugshot of
> myself and turn it into a PNG file of, say, 1024x768 pixels.
> Then I turn the 'face.png' file into a pure HTML rendering of the
> PNG file, such that in a 1024x768 sized table, each table cell
> corresponds to one pixel of the PNG picture, and its background colour
> is chosen according to the colour of the corresponding pixel.
>
> In other words, something like
> http://perl.infoware.ne.jp/~hoyama/toro.gif.html only with a nice
> picture of myself.
>
> For each cell of the huge table, then, I proceed to insert the
> corresponding character in the stream of the Apache Software 2.0
> licensed source code into each cell. In order to have good looking
> code not ruin my HTMLized picture, I also set the text colour for
> each cell to the colour of the backgound of each cell, making it
> invisible, but nevertheless adding to the significance, and weight
> of my artwork.
Again, there is established precedent for artwork that declares
such things to be a copy of the original work, not a derivative work.
The result is then just a collective work.
> I chose to publish the resulting HTML file under the MIT license.
> Is it a Derivative Work under the apache license? Under which
> license are the single, invisible characters in each cell? Under
> which license is the output of lynx -dump on the file?
>
> If separability is the key issue here, then let my Derivative Work
> consist of the original Work with all comments, save for copyright
> notices removed.
The Apache License does not give permission to create a derivative
work that lacks the copyright notices.
>> We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they
>> choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case.
>
> Interesting. This is the first time I hear that the termination
> in a patent retaliation clause is not mandatory. I have always
> read "shall" to mean "will/must", rather than meaning "may".
An owner has the right to license what they own however
they wish. The only thing that terminates is the Apache
requirement that the contributor must provide that license
to the person litigating against them.
>>>> In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or
>>>> BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights
>>>> are equivalent to those where the license was terminated.
>>>
>>> Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work
>>> based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license
>>> grant
>>> does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose
>>> I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet.
>>
>> The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2.
>
> It uses pretty much the same language as far as I can see, without
> mentioning Derivative Works, so the question remains: does the patent
> grant extend to Derivative Works?
Read it again. The patent license is granted to the recipients
(people/legal entities), not to a copy of software. Derivative
Works is a term from copyright law, not patent law, and thus has
no relevance to the patent discussion at all.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
>
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT
> > license?
>
> No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the
> Apache license.
Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the MIT
license specifically lacks to meet the terms?
> > Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose
> > my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as long as the terms I
> > chose are not contrary to the ASL2. Is the MIT license acceptable as
> > a license for a Derivative Works as a whole?
>
> Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of
> the original work remain intact.
OK. I am pretty new to the concept of sublicensing, so please bear with me
while I try to figure out what the limits are. I've already seen that
different Academic licenses have different ways to go about sublicensing,
which is somewhat confusing.
Is there some FAQ from the ASF on how the Apache Software License 2.0
works in practice? I'd imagine that to be a regular question for
companies and individuals alike, who wish to reuse ASF's software in
their own solutions, and are freshly starting to figure out the
licensing framework within which the ASF operates.
"Make money fast by creating propretary forks of ASFs software", that
sort of stuff. ;)
> Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work.
OK. Then let me try something else, a bit more creative, that weaves
the Apache code together with my work.
Let's say I, in a fit of Art, use my webcam to create a mugshot of
myself and turn it into a PNG file of, say, 1024x768 pixels.
Then I turn the 'face.png' file into a pure HTML rendering of the
PNG file, such that in a 1024x768 sized table, each table cell
corresponds to one pixel of the PNG picture, and its background colour
is chosen according to the colour of the corresponding pixel.
In other words, something like
http://perl.infoware.ne.jp/~hoyama/toro.gif.html only with a nice
picture of myself.
For each cell of the huge table, then, I proceed to insert the
corresponding character in the stream of the Apache Software 2.0
licensed source code into each cell. In order to have good looking
code not ruin my HTMLized picture, I also set the text colour for
each cell to the colour of the backgound of each cell, making it
invisible, but nevertheless adding to the significance, and weight
of my artwork.
I chose to publish the resulting HTML file under the MIT license.
Is it a Derivative Work under the apache license? Under which
license are the single, invisible characters in each cell? Under
which license is the output of lynx -dump on the file?
If separability is the key issue here, then let my Derivative Work
consist of the original Work with all comments, save for copyright
notices removed.
> We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they
> choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case.
Interesting. This is the first time I hear that the termination
in a patent retaliation clause is not mandatory. I have always
read "shall" to mean "will/must", rather than meaning "may".
> >> In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or
> >> BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights
> >> are equivalent to those where the license was terminated.
> >
> > Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work
> > based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant
> > does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose
> > I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet.
>
> The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2.
It uses pretty much the same language as far as I can see, without
mentioning Derivative Works, so the question remains: does the patent
grant extend to Derivative Works?
Or does it solely cover the unmodified original Works as distributed
by the Foundation?
> If none of the contributors has patents, then they can't license
> them in the first place and the clause is already a noop.
Cool. Maybe all it takes to make specific ALv2 licensed works to be
useable within GPLd works would be to have each contributor state that
they have some/no patents that are "necessarily infringed by their
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with
the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted", for example in
the NOTICE file?
Then one could safely pick the patent-unencumbered code, and
ignore the rest.
> Would the scenario discussed by Rosen for the AFL be any
> > different for the ASL2?
>
> Yes. The patent license in ASL2 is not sublicenseable. It is a
> direct grant from the contributor to all recipients of Apache
> software works to which they contributed.
OK. There is no patent grant for recepients of
Derived Works licensed as a whole under licenses
other than the ALv2. Correct?
cheers,
dalibor topic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT
> license?
No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the
Apache license.
> Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose
> my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as long as the terms I
> chose are not contrary to the ASL2. Is the MIT license acceptable as
> a license for a Derivative Works as a whole?
Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of
the original work remain intact.
> If it is, let's say that I create a Derivative Work of Apache Derby
> by prepending each and every file in the tarball that I downloaded from
> Apache.org with the text
>
> "This Software has been modified, and therefore as a whole is licensed
> under the terms of the MIT license, which follows:
That isn't sufficient to create a derivative work under copyright law.
> [snip]
>
> To satisfy requirements for creation of a Derivative Work in the Apache
> Software License 2.0 of the original Work available from
> www.apache.org,
> and in order to be able to chose my own licensing terms, here is a
> highly creative haiku on software licensing I wrote specifically
> for this ocassion:
>
> Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh.
> Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh,
> D'oh D'oh D'oh D'oh Argh!"
Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work.
> The text I have says
>
> "If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
> or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
> contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to
> You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date
> such
> litigation is filed."
>
> To me, that sounds as if the patent license termination is automatic
> as soon as the law suit is filed, rather than something that may or
> may not happen at the patent owner's discretion. Correct?
We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they
choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case.
>> In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or
>> BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights
>> are equivalent to those where the license was terminated.
>
> Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work
> based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant
> does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose
> I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet.
The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2.
>>> Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
>>
>> No, it is not a bug. It is an intentional feature to help those
>> of us who do not litigate our license to keep our developers
>> out of the court system and protect our foundation from submarine
>> submission of patented material.
>
> I am sorry about calling it a bug, and I appreciate the interesting
> device used to encourage recepients of ASF's software to avoid dragging
> memebers to court. Still, it is a feature I do not need, as I have no
> patents, and no intentions to sue the ASF, so I would like to turn
> that feature into a noop for those I distribute my haiku enhanced
> Derivative Works under the MIT to.
If none of the contributors has patents, then they can't license
them in the first place and the clause is already a noop.
> Lawrence Rosen goes into this particular scenario in some detail wrt
to
> sublicensing and the effects on the patent clauses in the AFL in his
> book
> on Open Source Licensing, available at
> http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm in chapter 10, pages 247-249.
>
> Rosen says
>
> "Does section 10 of the
> AFL extend through sublicensing to protect the author of A
> even against patent infringement lawsuits by downstream sub-
> licensees like X? [..]
> Do such terms bind—via sublicensing—the recipients
> of derivative works of AFL-licensed contributions?
> I find it hard to believe that any court would bind any
> downstream sublicensee of an open source contribution to any
> terms and conditions of a license of which he was not
> informed and didn’t manifestly accept. That is certainly a basic
> tenet of contract law and a fair result in the context of mass-
> marketed open source software offered for free over the Inter-
> net. So to the extent that an AFL-licensed component was
> sublicensed by D as part of a derivative work, customer X at
> the end of the chain cannot be bound to the AFL but only to
> the license with D that he or she accepted.
> [..]License terms do not pass
> through via sublicensing unless A insists upon it in the soft-
> ware license, and the AFL does no such thing."
>
> He offers a discussion of pretty much the same scenario I am trying to
> figure out wrt to the ASL2 in the context of the similar patent grants
> in the AFL. Would the scenario discussed by Rosen for the AFL be any
> different for the ASL2?
Yes. The patent license in ASL2 is not sublicenseable. It is a
direct grant from the contributor to all recipients of Apache
software works to which they contributed.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> [It] sounds as if the patent license termination is automatic
> as soon as the law suit is filed, rather than something that
> may or may not happen at the patent owner's discretion.
A patent holder can always explicitly provide a patent grant to the litigant.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
Hi Roy,
thank you very much for your polite, fast and detailed reply.
Let's substitute the MIT license for the GPL/LGPL/whatever, since it is
less restrictive and considered to be acceptable for the ASF as well
as being compatible with GPL and LGPL (and any other license afaik).
Let's also use Derby as an example, since it's a nice project, too.
Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT
license? I'm wondering since I've heard both yes and no answers from
various people, so I guess I'd ask someone who knows.
Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose
my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as long as the terms I
chose are not contrary to the ASL2. Is the MIT license acceptable as
a license for a Derivative Works as a whole?
If it is, let's say that I create a Derivative Work of Apache Derby
by prepending each and every file in the tarball that I downloaded from
Apache.org with the text
"This Software has been modified, and therefore as a whole is licensed
under the terms of the MIT license, which follows:
[snip]
To satisfy requirements for creation of a Derivative Work in the Apache
Software License 2.0 of the original Work available from www.apache.org,
and in order to be able to chose my own licensing terms, here is a
highly creative haiku on software licensing I wrote specifically
for this ocassion:
Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh.
Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh,
D'oh D'oh D'oh D'oh Argh!"
> > Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
> > i.e. to apply to
> > all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
> > to carry
> > around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
> > GPL2/ASL2 version
> > on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
> > carry the additional
> > ASL around when they redistribute further.
>
> No, it isn't lost -- the GPL requires that those notices remain
> intact as well and it doesn't matter how many times they change
> hands -- the Apache license remains the way in which the copyright
> owner gave everyone else the right to reproduce the software.
> The fact that you added a more restrictive set of terms (GPL)
> does not change the original terms.
What if I add a set of more liberal terms than the original ones (MIT)?
> No, you don't understand. Neither the ASL nor the GPL creates
> a patent license. Apache has a contributors agreement in which
> all significant contributors agree to provide a patent license
> to all recipients of Apache software (including those who received
> it via a GPL redistribution) which *may* be terminated if the
> recipient sues the contributor for patent infringement claiming
> that the work to which they contributed the license infringes
> one of that recipient's patents.
The text I have says
"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to
You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such
litigation is filed."
To me, that sounds as if the patent license termination is automatic
as soon as the law suit is filed, rather than something that may or
may not happen at the patent owner's discretion. Correct?
> In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or
> BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights
> are equivalent to those where the license was terminated.
Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work
based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant
does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose
I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet.
> > Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
>
> No, it is not a bug. It is an intentional feature to help those
> of us who do not litigate our license to keep our developers
> out of the court system and protect our foundation from submarine
> submission of patented material.
I am sorry about calling it a bug, and I appreciate the interesting
device used to encourage recepients of ASF's software to avoid dragging
memebers to court. Still, it is a feature I do not need, as I have no
patents, and no intentions to sue the ASF, so I would like to turn
that feature into a noop for those I distribute my haiku enhanced
Derivative Works under the MIT to.
Lawrence Rosen goes into this particular scenario in some detail wrt to
sublicensing and the effects on the patent clauses in the AFL in his book
on Open Source Licensing, available at
http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm in chapter 10, pages 247-249.
Rosen says
"Does section 10 of the
AFL extend through sublicensing to protect the author of A
even against patent infringement lawsuits by downstream sub-
licensees like X? [..]
Do such terms bind—via sublicensing—the recipients
of derivative works of AFL-licensed contributions?
I find it hard to believe that any court would bind any
downstream sublicensee of an open source contribution to any
terms and conditions of a license of which he was not
informed and didn’t manifestly accept. That is certainly a basic
tenet of contract law and a fair result in the context of mass-
marketed open source software offered for free over the Inter-
net. So to the extent that an AFL-licensed component was
sublicensed by D as part of a derivative work, customer X at
the end of the chain cannot be bound to the AFL but only to
the license with D that he or she accepted.
[..]License terms do not pass
through via sublicensing unless A insists upon it in the soft-
ware license, and the AFL does no such thing."
He offers a discussion of pretty much the same scenario I am trying to
figure out wrt to the ASL2 in the context of the similar patent grants
in the AFL. Would the scenario discussed by Rosen for the AFL be any
different for the ASL2?
cheers,
dalibor topic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source form
> and
> distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
> triple license (like Mozilla) on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
>
> Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitly
> wants to
> allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different
> license, to
> allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case
> it's the GPL,
> so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in
> some of their
> proprietary products, for example,
Yes, we have no problem with that provided our license is followed
in regards to retaining the notices and license in the work.
> Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
> i.e. to apply to
> all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
> to carry
> around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
> GPL2/ASL2 version
> on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
> carry the additional
> ASL around when they redistribute further.
No, it isn't lost -- the GPL requires that those notices remain
intact as well and it doesn't matter how many times they change
hands -- the Apache license remains the way in which the copyright
owner gave everyone else the right to reproduce the software.
The fact that you added a more restrictive set of terms (GPL)
does not change the original terms.
> The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right,
> I live in
> Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents,
> I have my own
> license to use, and those that received the Works from me are
> protected by the
> liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite
> the termination
> provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL
> does not know the
> concept of patent termination.
No, you don't understand. Neither the ASL nor the GPL creates
a patent license. Apache has a contributors agreement in which
all significant contributors agree to provide a patent license
to all recipients of Apache software (including those who received
it via a GPL redistribution) which *may* be terminated if the
recipient sues the contributor for patent infringement claiming
that the work to which they contributed the license infringes
one of that recipient's patents. The ASL merely informs the
recipient that we have arranged for that patent license to be
granted as part of the CLA.
In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or
BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights
are equivalent to those where the license was terminated. I have
talked to Eben about that and he claims that the FSF can argue that
an implied patent license exists if the patent owner distributes
as GPL from the start, but such reasoning has never been tested
in court and most lawyers I've talked to say it could only apply
to the initial recipients of the GPL'd work and not to
redistributors who are unknown to the patent owner.
> Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
No, it is not a bug. It is an intentional feature to help those
of us who do not litigate our license to keep our developers
out of the court system and protect our foundation from submarine
submission of patented material. The bug is in the FSF's refusal
to fix their own license in spite of the fact that they actually
approve of the termination clause.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Roy T. Fielding <fielding <at> gbiv.com> writes:
> I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
> but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that.
Roy,
I have thought about that, and, speaking for myself, I'd like to thank you
for being helpful for the past ten years. I would appreciate it very much
if
you'd continue being helpful, and continue showing respect for your
fellow
developers, as that is one of the things Apache is about[1] and one of
things I
find interesting about it.
I have some trouble understanding the sublicensing provision of the
Apache
license v2, and I believe you were one of the persons drafting it, so
I hope you
can help me understand it better.
>From ASL2:
[...]
"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
Object form,
made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice
that is
included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the
Appendix below).
[...]
2. Grant of Copyright License. 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.
I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source
form and
distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
triple license (like Mozilla)
on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitely
wants to
allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different
license, to
allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case
it's the GPL,
so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in
some of their
proprietary products, for example,
Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive,
i.e. to apply to
all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement
to carry
around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed
GPL2/ASL2 version
on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not
carry the additional
ASL around when they redistribute further.
The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right,
I live in
Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents,
I have my own
license to use, and those that received the Works from me are
protected by the
liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite
the termination
provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL
does not know the
concept of patent termination.
Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way?
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-about
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Nice Harmony spirit there.
A nice spirit would be to stop blindly believing everything
the FSF says about compatibility, particularly on their
ridiculous license compatibility list, and instead use your
own brain to read the license.
> Just like the ASF, the FSF likes to have paperwork on file for all
> contributions to any of their projects.
Look at the difference between the paperwork. The FSF wants a
copyright assignment so that they can enforce the terms of GPL
against anyone who violates it. The ASF wants a non-exclusive
license so that we don't get sued for redistribution. Unlike
the FSF, we only need paperwork as a backup statement from
significant contributors.
> But also just like the ASF, the
> FSF does distribute external parts. Even things that are not under the
> GPL or LGPL. If you look at the GNU Classpath project for example you
> will find a couple of examples in our external/ directory. These are
> projects which we wish to distribute together with GNU Classpath and
> for
> which we know the distribution terms are acceptable and they come from
> known good upstream projects. Of course ASF products would qualify as
> known good upstream, since the paperwork you require for contributions
> are so similar to what the FSF requires in the form of individual and
> company disclaimers. And if the distribution terms are GPL-compatible
> we
> would be happy to ship anything that comes out of our harmony work.
>
> We decided to take legal/political issues off the harmony list itself
> so
> we could concentrate on technical matters for now and hoped that any
> (perceived) license issues blocking further collaboration between the
> groups could be worked out in the meantime. Without creating huge flame
> wars on the list. That is why Geir brings it up here. To see if the
> incubation process allows for these kind of compromises to get more
> people involved. I really hope there will be more substantial feedback
> then "go suck an egg" if no compromise is possible. The above really
> isn't that helpful.
I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that.
The only time that the Apache License and GPL conflict is when
the owner of a patent sues an entity for patent infringement
because that entity is redistributing an Apache licensed work
while at the same time the patent owner is offering the same work
under a GPL license. Now, who do you think would want to sue
the Apache Software Foundation or its redistributors for patent
infringement, while at the same time offering the exact same code
under the GPL?
As I explained in my helpful feedback to Geir at ApacheCon,
all you have to do to guarantee compatibility between the GPL
and anything covered by the Apache license, including all of
our discussion forums, is for YOU to agree not to sue any of
the people contributing code for patent infringement. That's it.
If you agree to that then you can distribute the code under the
GPL because the GPL does satisfy all of the Apache terms.
Alternatively, if you wish to blindly follow the advice of
the FSF, you can also use anything discussed on the list by
simply asking the person who contributed the code for an
additional agreement, namely that they will not terminate
their own patent licenses for their contributions if they
happen to be sued by the FSF for patent infringement.
If you can't live with those conditions, then why should we
want to collaborate with you?
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi Roy,
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Note, however, that the people crying about the community terms
> are a bunch of idiots. They already require their contributors to
> assign copyright to the FSF. As such, the mailing list discussion
> is completely irrelevant to their redistribution rights because
> they can't use any code from that discussion without a separate
> copyright assignment from the original author. Geir
> should tell them to go suck an egg, but he is far too nice. ;-)
Nice Harmony spirit there.
Just like the ASF, the FSF likes to have paperwork on file for all
contributions to any of their projects. But also just like the ASF, the
FSF does distribute external parts. Even things that are not under the
GPL or LGPL. If you look at the GNU Classpath project for example you
will find a couple of examples in our external/ directory. These are
projects which we wish to distribute together with GNU Classpath and for
which we know the distribution terms are acceptable and they come from
known good upstream projects. Of course ASF products would qualify as
known good upstream, since the paperwork you require for contributions
are so similar to what the FSF requires in the form of individual and
company disclaimers. And if the distribution terms are GPL-compatible we
would be happy to ship anything that comes out of our harmony work.
We decided to take legal/political issues off the harmony list itself so
we could concentrate on technical matters for now and hoped that any
(perceived) license issues blocking further collaboration between the
groups could be worked out in the meantime. Without creating huge flame
wars on the list. That is why Geir brings it up here. To see if the
incubation process allows for these kind of compromises to get more
people involved. I really hope there will be more substantial feedback
then "go suck an egg" if no compromise is possible. The above really
isn't that helpful.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath!
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be under the
>> Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
>> something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
>> mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
>>
>> Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
>> projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a license
>> we accept.
>
> I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A formal
> reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since after 7
> years on
> various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that contributions
> over
> mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
>
> Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any
> licensing
> attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list, would for
> sure
> be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy of..."
> is
> ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
That isn't true, just as listening to a song over the radio doesn't
make the song public domain. Nor does viewing a poster on a street
make the poster art public domain.
> IIUIC;
> If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly display,
> such
> display must contain any such claims. Without informing the audience,
> I have
> given up such claims.
>
> IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or not.
You are not even close. If you want to learn something about
copyright law, there is plenty of reference material available on
the web for you to review. There is no need to speculate.
ASF mailing lists are protected to some degree by the community's
acceptance that the work done on those lists will be distributed
under the Apache license. We have a legal argument (not a slam dunk)
that nobody could possibly participate on one of our lists without
knowing that the products we produce are under the Apache License,
and therefore a person posting code would not be able to claim
damages for infringing their copyright on redistribution. However,
that doesn't mean they lose their copyright -- they can still
prevent us from using the code in future releases.
Right now, that argument holds pretty well for all of our public
mailing lists even if the person hasn't read the community
license. The only thing that license does is clarify the common
sense expectations of our public lists. If we start making
exceptions for particular lists, then we can't say that the
entire community can expect the same terms to apply, and then
we need to explicitly post those terms in places where the
subscribers cannot ignore them.
As I said to Geir at ApacheCon, we cannot allow the terms to be
any less than the Apache License terms on any of our lists.
If Harmony needs to placate the ignorant, then contributors
would have to explicitly dual-license their contributions so
that they can be used by either group (i.e., provide additional
sets of terms for the whiners).
Note, however, that the people crying about the community terms
are a bunch of idiots. They already require their contributors to
assign copyright to the FSF. As such, the mailing list discussion
is completely irrelevant to their redistribution rights because
they can't use any code from that discussion without a separate
copyright assignment from the original author. Geir
should tell them to go suck an egg, but he is far too nice. ;-)
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be under the
> Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
> something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
> mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
>
> Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
> projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a license
> we accept.
I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A formal
reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since after 7 years on
various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that contributions over
mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any licensing
attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list, would for sure
be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy of..." is
ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
IIUIC;
If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly display, such
display must contain any such claims. Without informing the audience, I have
given up such claims.
IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or not.
If this is case, then it is up to each mailing list participant to protect the
works or forfeit the claims at his/her own discretion. Which "by default"
then ends up being, chat along as much as you wish and anyone do whatever
they like with the content of such discussion.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Jul 26, 2005, at 12:06 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 July 2005 04:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> We have the following outstanding issue that I will be talking to the
>> Apache Incubator PMC about - parts of the community have asked that
>> we change our default license for mail list contributions to a
>> license compatible with the GPL, as the Apache License is deemed
>> incompatible by the FSF.
>>
>
> I doubt this should be discussed with the Incubator PMC in
> isolation and I
> think a wider audience is wiser.
Clearly. But we'll start on general@ incubator, and if we need to go
elswhere, we do.
>
> legal-discuss@, members@ and board@ is definately going to be very
> interested
> in this.
>
> "default license for mail list contributions" is also a term new to
> *me*. Care
> to explain what that means??
Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be under the
Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a license
we accept.
I just simply made the policy explicit. I believe every list here
should do it, and once we get some issues out of the way, I'll
propose to the greater ASF.
geir
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 04:46, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> We have the following outstanding issue that I will be talking to the
> Apache Incubator PMC about - parts of the community have asked that
> we change our default license for mail list contributions to a
> license compatible with the GPL, as the Apache License is deemed
> incompatible by the FSF.
I doubt this should be discussed with the Incubator PMC in isolation and I
think a wider audience is wiser.
legal-discuss@, members@ and board@ is definately going to be very interested
in this.
"default license for mail list contributions" is also a term new to *me*. Care
to explain what that means??
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org