You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Hen <ba...@apache.org> on 2018/08/03 05:02:17 UTC
Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
Thanks Rob - patch applied :)
I removed the 'and Joke' and 'thus leaving them open to legal
interpretation' pieces. I also moved the JSON license over to this section.
Hen
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
> Thanks Daniel
>
> Suggested patch inline, also attached as a file though not sure if this
> list scrubs attachments:
>
> Index: resolved.mdtext
> ===================================================================
> --- resolved.mdtext (revision 1837040)
> +++ resolved.mdtext (working copy)
> @@ -159,6 +159,9 @@
> legal policy of being a [universal donor](https://s.apache.org/4Uzg).
> The terms of Facebook BSD+Patents license are not a subset of those
> found in the ALv2, and
> they cannot be sublicensed as ALv2.
> +
> +Nonsensical and Joke licenses
> +: These licenses while amusing to their creators are legally problematic.
> They often include subjective Field of use restrictions e.g. “Don’t be
> evil” with no arbiter for that subjective restriction defined, thus leaving
> them open to legal interpretation. In some cases they may not even grant
> sufficient rights to conform to the OSI open source definition. Since we
> do not wish to surprise our downstream consumers we forbid the use of such
> licenses.
>
>
> ## How should "Weak Copyleft" Licenses be handled? ## {#category-b}
>
> ---
>
> If this looks good to people I presume that as a member I can commit
> directly to update staging, though I may not have the rights to publish the
> legal website?
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> From: Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>
> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 10:18
> To: <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
>
> Is it worth adding a short explanatory section to the end of the relevant
> FAQ entry on Legal Resolved e.g.
>
> Nonsensical and Joke Licenses
> Theses licenses while amusing to their creators are legally problematic.
> They often include subjective Field of use restrictions e.g. “Don’t be
> evil” with no arbitrer for that subjective restriction defined leaving them
> open to legal interpretation. In some cases they may not even grant
> sufficient rights to conform to the OSI open source definition. Since we
> do not wish to surprise our downstream consumers we forbid the use of such
> licenses.
>
> I would have submitted a patch directly but I don’t know where in SVN the
> legal website lives
>
> Rob
>
> From: Hen <ba...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Sunday, 29 July 2018 at 06:52
> To: <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Luis Villa <ma...@lu.is> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:49 PM Roman Shaposhnik <mailto:
> roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Hen <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > We have a JIRA issue where the action is to put the Solipsistic Eclipse
> > Public License on the Cat X list (LEGAL-392).
> >
> > I’d also like to put the “Don’t be a Dick” License on the list. I added
> more
> > thoughts on the License here
> > https://github.com/RIAEvangelist/node-ipc/issues/133 (issue raised
> question
> > of whether it would be Apache category X, which I thought it would be).
>
> I've been known to have a different take on joke licenses. I honestly think
> that exactly because they are jokes there's no way they can be enforacable
> in any meaningful way and as such codebases using them aare equivalent
> to code bases in public domain.
>
> Others have made this point indirectly, but it's probably worthwhile to
> say it explicitly: the default of global copyright law, when there is no
> license, is that the author retains all rights.
>
> So if a license is "not enforceable in any meaningful way", the risk falls
> *on the user*, not on the author.
>
> It's possible to make some arguments about these sorts of licenses, of
> course, but the user would have to be the one arguing for validity, not the
> other way around.
>
> Added to the Category X list.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>.
No problem, LGTM
Rob
From: Hen <ba...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
Date: Friday, 3 August 2018 at 06:02
To: <le...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
Thanks Rob - patch applied :)
I removed the 'and Joke' and 'thus leaving them open to legal interpretation' pieces. I also moved the JSON license over to this section.
Hen
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:24 AM, Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org> wrote:
Thanks Daniel
Suggested patch inline, also attached as a file though not sure if this list scrubs attachments:
Index: resolved.mdtext
===================================================================
--- resolved.mdtext (revision 1837040)
+++ resolved.mdtext (working copy)
@@ -159,6 +159,9 @@
legal policy of being a [universal donor](https://s.apache.org/4Uzg).
The terms of Facebook BSD+Patents license are not a subset of those found in the ALv2, and
they cannot be sublicensed as ALv2.
+
+Nonsensical and Joke licenses
+: These licenses while amusing to their creators are legally problematic. They often include subjective Field of use restrictions e.g. “Don’t be evil” with no arbiter for that subjective restriction defined, thus leaving them open to legal interpretation. In some cases they may not even grant sufficient rights to conform to the OSI open source definition. Since we do not wish to surprise our downstream consumers we forbid the use of such licenses.
## How should "Weak Copyleft" Licenses be handled? ## {#category-b}
---
If this looks good to people I presume that as a member I can commit directly to update staging, though I may not have the rights to publish the legal website?
Regards,
Rob
From: Rob Vesse <rv...@dotnetrdf.org>
Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
Date: Monday, 30 July 2018 at 10:18
To: <le...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
Is it worth adding a short explanatory section to the end of the relevant FAQ entry on Legal Resolved e.g.
Nonsensical and Joke Licenses
Theses licenses while amusing to their creators are legally problematic. They often include subjective Field of use restrictions e.g. “Don’t be evil” with no arbitrer for that subjective restriction defined leaving them open to legal interpretation. In some cases they may not even grant sufficient rights to conform to the OSI open source definition. Since we do not wish to surprise our downstream consumers we forbid the use of such licenses.
I would have submitted a patch directly but I don’t know where in SVN the legal website lives
Rob
From: Hen <ba...@apache.org>
Reply-To: <le...@apache.org>
Date: Sunday, 29 July 2018 at 06:52
To: <le...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Joke licenses -> Cat X
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Luis Villa <ma...@lu.is> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:49 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ma...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Hen <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> We have a JIRA issue where the action is to put the Solipsistic Eclipse
> Public License on the Cat X list (LEGAL-392).
>
> I’d also like to put the “Don’t be a Dick” License on the list. I added more
> thoughts on the License here
> https://github.com/RIAEvangelist/node-ipc/issues/133 (issue raised question
> of whether it would be Apache category X, which I thought it would be).
I've been known to have a different take on joke licenses. I honestly think
that exactly because they are jokes there's no way they can be enforacable
in any meaningful way and as such codebases using them aare equivalent
to code bases in public domain.
Others have made this point indirectly, but it's probably worthwhile to say it explicitly: the default of global copyright law, when there is no license, is that the author retains all rights.
So if a license is "not enforceable in any meaningful way", the risk falls *on the user*, not on the author.
It's possible to make some arguments about these sorts of licenses, of course, but the user would have to be the one arguing for validity, not the other way around.
Added to the Category X list.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org