You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2013/10/29 16:17:15 UTC
Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Dear Apache Members,
Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list unreasonably to
argue that board officers are not acting appropriately regarding certain
legal issues:
> Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I suggest we
> all decline to respond further.
I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to legal-discuss@
(a public list) and members@ (an internal list).
In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to respond
to:
I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy" that
Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party license
issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA issues.
"Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You should quit
inventing policy as you go along.
Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for these
actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's actual
role described, certainly not in any way that would provide written guidance
for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see something consistent with
our mission statement: "The Foundation provides an established framework for
intellectual property...."
By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this brouhaha in
Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to experiment with CC-BY.
Their representatives have advised me to give up the fight. :-) Someone must
have won this battle! But Apache keeps losing, because we still refuse all
attempts to lead the FOSS world in defining what our Third Party Licensing
Policy ought to be. Our VP of Legal Affairs insists that the "policy" is to
sit back and wait until a project asks about a license, then approve or
disapprove the license based on ad hoc rules but no intelligible written
principles or guidelines.
For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging me to
stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get back to
programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year as an attorney
working in support of FOSS. I assume that my leadership on these issues was
why I was elected as a member of The Apache Software Foundation in the first
place. Telling me to shut up about intellectual property issues of open
source and open standards is like cheating me of oxygen. I won't let it
happen.
/Larry
P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of support for
this email. But please, those of you who have the courage to do so, please
write me privately with your comments. Pro or con, it will help me resist
this plea from board members that I should "shut up" about legal issues.
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>
www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Thank you, Brett and Jukka, for spending the time pointing to the publicly
documented and archived materials that have led to the current practice of
only considering concrete (PMC driven) use cases rather than hypothetical
cases.
This is extremely useful for those who have some difficulty in
understanding how the ASF works and why it works that way.
Ross
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Senior Technology Evangelist
Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
On 30 October 2013 06:17, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The process of recording specific answered questions was discussed by the
> > Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and has been in
> > operation since that time. The following statement of intent was used:
> > "As much as humanly possible, everything will be by consensus of the
> Legal
> > Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy Consensus. If there ever is a
> > time that consensus can't be reached, the decision will fall to the Chair
> > who will keep the board informed on any such issues."
>
> FTR, the culmination of that discussion is in
> http://s.apache.org/ramblings (alternative view in
> http://markmail.org/message/itifjhnu7nybnm7w).
>
> That statement of intent and its rationale were then recorded in more
> authoritative form in http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html, with
> a link to it on http://www.apache.org/legal/. The section "Statement
> of Intent" of that document records the principle quoted by Brett.
>
> It also documents the reason behind the resolution of LEGAL-179:
>
> "PMCs will be encouraged to provide specific questions.
> Questions of the form listed above will take priority over
> "here's a problem, solve it for me" types of open ended
> questions."
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> The process of recording specific answered questions was discussed by the
> Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and has been in
> operation since that time. The following statement of intent was used:
> "As much as humanly possible, everything will be by consensus of the Legal
> Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy Consensus. If there ever is a
> time that consensus can't be reached, the decision will fall to the Chair
> who will keep the board informed on any such issues."
FTR, the culmination of that discussion is in
http://s.apache.org/ramblings (alternative view in
http://markmail.org/message/itifjhnu7nybnm7w).
That statement of intent and its rationale were then recorded in more
authoritative form in http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html, with
a link to it on http://www.apache.org/legal/. The section "Statement
of Intent" of that document records the principle quoted by Brett.
It also documents the reason behind the resolution of LEGAL-179:
"PMCs will be encouraged to provide specific questions.
Questions of the form listed above will take priority over
"here's a problem, solve it for me" types of open ended
questions."
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi Larry,
On 30 Oct 2013, at 2:17 am, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to respond to:
> I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy" that Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party license issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You should quit inventing policy as you go along.
> Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for these actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's actual role described, certainly not in any way that would provide written guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see something consistent with our mission statement: "The Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual property...."
Earlier in that private thread, two links were provided that outline the authority to establish policy:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_06_22.txt
Special Order 6. B. Appoint a Vice President of Legal Affairs
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_03_28.txt
Special Order 8. C. Establish the Legal Affairs Committee
The process of recording specific answered questions was discussed by the Legal Affairs Committee in March 2008 on this list, and has been in operation since that time. The following statement of intent was used:
"As much as humanly possible, everything will be by consensus of the Legal Affairs Committee, though possibly via Lazy Consensus. If there ever is a time that consensus can't be reached, the decision will fall to the Chair who will keep the board informed on any such issues."
I hope this addresses your question.
Regards,
Brett
--
Brett Porter @brettporter
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
AFAICT, it all seems quite simple: there exists a committee which handles
legal affairs at the enjoyment of the board. That committee has a VP which
is the final position answerable to the board and is thus "holding the
bag," in the end. The VP and/or committee establishes policy as
collectively it sees fit (VP being slightly "more equal than others");
whether or not that policy is officially encoded someplace is the
committee's business. If the committee chooses not to formally document
its policy, then when the first of many similar decisions is made, then
we'll call that "ad-hoc." However, consistency in the resolution of
successive similar issues eventually transcends the "ad-hoc" allegation.
The principles I have seen consistently portrayed with regard to ASF
third-party licensing issues are:
1. Permit anything which violates neither the law nor the social policies
of the ASF, and
2. Defer all decisions until the point at which they are demonstrably
needed.
IMO I have just reverse-engineered Apache legal policy wrt third-party
licensing such as it has been implemented during my own observation. :)
Every time I ever approached Sam with a legal question, the answer was
*always* "let's not deal in hypotheticals." The consistent application of
this approach does constitute a policy, and anyone who has participated to
any degree in Apache legal business over the past few years has IMO had
ample opportunity to see that. Further, FWIW, principle #2 should come as
a surprise to no one: firstly, since the foundation is run by volunteer
energy, we must all be very discriminating in prioritizing our efforts.
Most of us have lives beyond the ASF or the broader OSS community, as
important as these are. Secondly, since the focus of the ASF is the
development of software, it seems quite fitting that the similar concept of
"premature optimization" manifests itself even in a non-software-related
aspect of ASF business.
Matt
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>wrote:
> Dear Apache Members,****
>
> ** **
>
> Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list unreasonably to
> argue that board officers are not acting appropriately regarding certain
> legal issues:****
>
> ** **
>
> > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I suggest we *
> ***
>
> > all decline to respond further.****
>
> ** **
>
> I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to legal-discuss@(a public list) and members@(an internal list).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to respond
> to:****
>
> I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy" that
> Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party license
> issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA issues.
> "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You should quit
> inventing policy as you go along.****
>
> Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for these
> actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's actual
> role described, certainly not in any way that would provide written
> guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see something
> consistent with our mission statement: "The Foundation provides an
> established framework for intellectual property...."****
>
> ** **
>
> By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this brouhaha in
> Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to experiment with CC-BY.
> Their representatives have advised me to give up the fight. :-) Someone
> must have won this battle! But Apache keeps losing, because we still refuse
> all attempts to lead the FOSS world in defining what our Third Party
> Licensing Policy ought to be. Our VP of Legal Affairs insists that the
> "policy" is to sit back and wait until a project asks about a license, then
> approve or disapprove the license based on ad hoc rules but no intelligible
> written principles or guidelines. ****
>
> ** **
>
> For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging me to
> stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get back to
> programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year as an attorney
> working in support of FOSS. I assume that my leadership on these issues was
> why I was elected as a member of The Apache Software Foundation in the
> first place. Telling me to shut up about intellectual property issues of
> open source and open standards is like cheating me of oxygen. I won't let
> it happen.****
>
> ** **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of support for
> this email. But please, those of you who have the courage to do so, please
> write me privately with your comments. Pro or con, it will help me resist
> this plea from board members that I should "shut up" about legal issues.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Lawrence Rosen****
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)****
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482****
>
> Office: 707-485-1242****
>
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu ****
>
> ** **
>
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:03 AM, C. Bergström <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
>>
> Isn't a case-by-case analysis a reasonable way to deal with this issue? (I don't know if my understanding is perfectly clear with what's really happening - seems like this best describes it from your email)
> -----
> Looking at it another way - has the current "informal" handling of this ever failed or produced an undesirable outcome? Larry - if you fail - what's the doomsday outcome? (If it ain't toooo broken - don't fix it?)
>
> You seem very passionate about this and keep your friends and allies happy - the carrot approach may take more time, but could be the best way to win in the long term... If there's no critical need *right now* - Let it go for a bit and revisit when people have the patience to engage again..
I would go one step further by saying if you want to get an answer to the Jira issue then find a concrete need for it at the ASF. If you can’t do that no one here is going to want to spend any effort on it. If you can find some real world use where an existing project needs the question answered at that point I am sure the question will be answered. Reading the Jira issue I just don’t see why any current ASF project needs this issue resolved.
Ralph
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by " C. Bergström " <cb...@pathscale.com>.
On 10/29/13 10:17 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> Dear Apache Members,
>
> Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list unreasonably
> to argue that board officers are not acting appropriately regarding
> certain legal issues:
>
> > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I suggest we
>
> > all decline to respond further.
>
> I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to
> legal-discuss@ (a public list) and members@ (an internal list).
>
> In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to
> respond to:
>
> I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy"
> that Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party
> license issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA
> issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You
> should quit inventing policy as you go along.
>
> Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for
> these actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that
> officer's actual role described, certainly not in any way that would
> provide written guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to
> see something consistent with our mission statement: "The Foundation
> provides an established framework for intellectual property...."
>
> By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this brouhaha
> in Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to experiment with
> CC-BY. Their representatives have advised me to give up the fight. :-)
> Someone must have won this battle! But Apache keeps losing, because we
> still refuse all attempts to lead the FOSS world in defining what our
> Third Party Licensing Policy ought to be. Our VP of Legal Affairs
> insists that the "policy" is to sit back and wait until a project asks
> about a license, then approve or disapprove the license based on ad
> hoc rules but no intelligible written principles or guidelines.
>
> For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging me
> to stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get back to
> programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year as an
> attorney working in support of FOSS. I assume that my leadership on
> these issues was why I was elected as a member of The Apache Software
> Foundation in the first place. Telling me to shut up about
> intellectual property issues of open source and open standards is like
> cheating me of oxygen. I won't let it happen.
>
> /Larry
>
> P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of support
> for this email. But please, those of you who have the courage to do
> so, please write me privately with your comments. Pro or con, it will
> help me resist this plea from board members that I should "shut up"
> about legal issues.
>
Isn't a case-by-case analysis a reasonable way to deal with this issue?
(I don't know if my understanding is perfectly clear with what's really
happening - seems like this best describes it from your email)
-----
Looking at it another way - has the current "informal" handling of this
ever failed or produced an undesirable outcome? Larry - if you fail -
what's the doomsday outcome? (If it ain't toooo broken - don't fix it?)
You seem very passionate about this and keep your friends and allies
happy - the carrot approach may take more time, but could be the best
way to win in the long term... If there's no critical need *right now* -
Let it go for a bit and revisit when people have the patience to engage
again..
Sorry I can't be of more help
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 10/29/13 11:17 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Dear Apache Members,
>
> Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list unreasonably to
> argue that board officers are not acting appropriately regarding certain
> legal issues:
>
> > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I suggest we
>
> > all decline to respond further.
Reminder to all: the board@ list is a privately archived list meant for
the board and officers of the ASF to conduct Foundation business, and
should be treated as confidential within the ASF. Emails or portions of
emails sent to any private list should not be posted onto a public list
like this one.
Thanks. Move along... Move along.
- Shane
P.S. Similarly, it's always wise to remind people up front if you're
crossposting between private and public lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
> Apache PMCs are just as lazy as all the rest of us
as sometimes are W3C Working Groups :-)
W3C have a number of different licenses:
* W3C Software License is listed as category A. [1]
* W3C Document License [2]
* W3C Test Suite License [3]
[2] and [3] are not open source licenses because they do not allow
modifications or derivative works, and that is by design. It's kind of
the point for a standard with conformance criteria; (I don't know why
that's not managed through controlling the use of the spec name).
Where I have been involved recently, tests are dual licensed, sofware
and test suite licenses, which makes using test suites at ASF get
covered by category A.
What matters to a PMC is what material, if any, is taken from the
specification document into the software and how that is done.
Andy
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
[2]
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright.html
On 30/10/13 01:06, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> As for LEGAL-179; Apache PMCs are just as lazy as all the rest of us. If
> they see a specification with this dual licensing set up, and W3C
> Document License is on the "Ok list", they won't raise any request about
> it. My question then is; Will that project's choice of W3C Document
> License propagate to downstream users, or will such downstream users be
> able to claim CC-BY for the specification combined with the ALv2 of the
> code itself??
> If so, then really, there is no problem at this point. If not, then
> really, there should at least be an inventory of whether any project is,
> or will soon be, affected.
>
> -- Niclas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> <ma...@rosenlaw.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Apache Members,____
>
> __ __
>
> Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list
> unreasonably to argue that board officers are not acting
> appropriately regarding certain legal issues:____
>
> __ __
>
> > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I
> suggest we ____
>
> > all decline to respond further.____
>
> __ __
>
> I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to
> legal-discuss@ (a public list) and members@ (an internal list). ____
>
> __ __
>
> In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to
> respond to:____
>
> I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy"
> that Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third
> party license issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several
> previous JIRA issues. "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal
> Affairs decided". You should quit inventing policy as you go along.____
>
> Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for
> these actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that
> officer's actual role described, certainly not in any way that would
> provide written guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like
> to see something consistent with our mission statement: "The
> Foundation provides an established framework for intellectual
> property...."____
>
> __ __
>
> By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this
> brouhaha in Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to
> experiment with CC-BY. Their representatives have advised me to give
> up the fight. :-) Someone must have won this battle! But Apache
> keeps losing, because we still refuse all attempts to lead the FOSS
> world in defining what our Third Party Licensing Policy ought to be.
> Our VP of Legal Affairs insists that the "policy" is to sit back and
> wait until a project asks about a license, then approve or
> disapprove the license based on ad hoc rules but no intelligible
> written principles or guidelines. ____
>
> __ __
>
> For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging
> me to stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get
> back to programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year
> as an attorney working in support of FOSS. I assume that my
> leadership on these issues was why I was elected as a member of The
> Apache Software Foundation in the first place. Telling me to shut up
> about intellectual property issues of open source and open standards
> is like cheating me of oxygen. I won't let it happen.____
>
> __ __
>
> /Larry____
>
> __ __
>
> P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of
> support for this email. But please, those of you who have the
> courage to do so, please write me privately with your comments. Pro
> or con, it will help me resist this plea from board members that I
> should "shut up" about legal issues.____
>
> __ __
>
> Lawrence Rosen____
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com
> <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>)____
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482____
>
> Office: 707-485-1242____
>
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu____
>
> __ __
>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> 河南南路555弄15号1901室。
> http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
>
> I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
> I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
As for LEGAL-179; Apache PMCs are just as lazy as all the rest of us. If
they see a specification with this dual licensing set up, and W3C Document
License is on the "Ok list", they won't raise any request about it. My
question then is; Will that project's choice of W3C Document License
propagate to downstream users, or will such downstream users be able to
claim CC-BY for the specification combined with the ALv2 of the code
itself??
If so, then really, there is no problem at this point. If not, then really,
there should at least be an inventory of whether any project is, or will
soon be, affected.
-- Niclas
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>wrote:
> Dear Apache Members,****
>
> ** **
>
> Certain board members accuse me of using the board@ list unreasonably to
> argue that board officers are not acting appropriately regarding certain
> legal issues:****
>
> ** **
>
> > Larry is abusing his privilege to interact on this list. I suggest we *
> ***
>
> > all decline to respond further.****
>
> ** **
>
> I will honor their request, but instead I will take this to legal-discuss@(a public list) and members@(an internal list).
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> In particular, I made this request which the Board has refused to respond
> to:****
>
> I challenge you to find anywhere on our website the written "policy" that
> Sam invoked to delay a decision about this and other third party license
> issues that I raised in LEGAL-179 /and/ several previous JIRA issues.
> "Policy" DOES NOT MEAN "the VP of Legal Affairs decided". You should quit
> inventing policy as you go along.****
>
> Can anyone else among our members please help us find authority for these
> actions by the VP of Legal Affairs? I've never seen that officer's actual
> role described, certainly not in any way that would provide written
> guidance for the "policy" that he invokes. I'd like to see something
> consistent with our mission statement: "The Foundation provides an
> established framework for intellectual property...."****
>
> ** **
>
> By the way, I've changed the topic of this thread. After this brouhaha in
> Apache, W3C is quietly withdrawing its efforts to experiment with CC-BY.
> Their representatives have advised me to give up the fight. :-) Someone
> must have won this battle! But Apache keeps losing, because we still refuse
> all attempts to lead the FOSS world in defining what our Third Party
> Licensing Policy ought to be. Our VP of Legal Affairs insists that the
> "policy" is to sit back and wait until a project asks about a license, then
> approve or disapprove the license based on ad hoc rules but no intelligible
> written principles or guidelines. ****
>
> ** **
>
> For those of you who have written me publicly or privately begging me to
> stop bothering you about this topic because you want to get back to
> programming, sorry but no. Next year will mark my 20th year as an attorney
> working in support of FOSS. I assume that my leadership on these issues was
> why I was elected as a member of The Apache Software Foundation in the
> first place. Telling me to shut up about intellectual property issues of
> open source and open standards is like cheating me of oxygen. I won't let
> it happen.****
>
> ** **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> P.S. I recognize that I won't get many /public/ statements of support for
> this email. But please, those of you who have the courage to do so, please
> write me privately with your comments. Pro or con, it will help me resist
> this plea from board members that I should "shut up" about legal issues.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Lawrence Rosen****
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)****
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482****
>
> Office: 707-485-1242****
>
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu ****
>
> ** **
>
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
河南南路555弄15号1901室。
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>> W3C specifications may contain material that can directly copied into a
>> generator to get executable code without a programming step: for
>> example: BNF and WebIDL.
>>
>> (I don't know if any projects current do that - I mention it because
>> such material is already in specs and is W3C Document Licensed.)
>
> W3C already makes it a practice to license IDL portions of a
> specification under the W3C Software License[1]
As a concrete example, Apache Jackrabbit includes XPath grammar files
from W3C under that license.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 30/10/13 05:34, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>>
>> First of all, I'd like to debunk a myth :
>>
>> Psudo-code is *not* code. It's basically what we call an algorithm.
>> That some layers confurse those two terms is understandable. Larry,
>> you can't make ths confusion, being a layer *and* a coder.
>
> W3C specifications may contain material that can directly copied into a
> generator to get executable code without a programming step: for
> example: BNF and WebIDL.
>
> (I don't know if any projects current do that - I mention it because
> such material is already in specs and is W3C Document Licensed.)
W3C already makes it a practice to license IDL portions of a
specification under the W3C Software License[1]
>From what I gather, the W3C PSIG quietly added this to Larry's
proposed option 3, and Larry quietly objected to same, which obviously
was a surprise to me.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 30/10/13 05:34, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> First of all, I'd like to debunk a myth :
>
> Psudo-code is *not* code. It's basically what we call an algorithm.
> That some layers confurse those two terms is understandable. Larry,
> you can't make ths confusion, being a layer *and* a coder.
W3C specifications may contain material that can directly copied into a
generator to get executable code without a programming step: for
example: BNF and WebIDL.
(I don't know if any projects current do that - I mention it because
such material is already in specs and is W3C Document Licensed.)
I don't believe W3C intends, or intended, to put in such restrictions.
It's just that the document/software split is no longer clear cut. PSIG
did not manage to split the concepts.
> And again, until we have a project starting to implement anything
> produced by the W3
I can't speak for other projects but for Jena, I believe we are not
affected but it is for an unusual reason. The BNF for the SPARQL
language is produced from the javacc in Jena, not the other way round (I
was the spec editor). The data languages are handwritten RC parsers,
not produced from the spec BNF, only with reference to it.
Other projects may have started form the BNF in any of these cases. 3rd
party libraries may also be affected.
Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <co...@apache.org>.
On 10/30/2013 10:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote
>> ...
>> I'm still wondering what such a
>> thing could have started a flury of inflamatory mails...
>
> Easy.... "Larry".
Not cool, Greg. I think that qualifies as _ad hominem_...
--
#ken B-)}
Ken Coar, RHCE, RHCSA, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
IT Engineering Tower, Red Hat/RDU
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 10/30/13 3:09 PM, Greg Stein a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote
>> ...
>> I'm still wondering what such a
>> thing could have started a flury of inflamatory mails...
> Easy.... "Larry".
You have to be 2 at least to start a fight ;-)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote
>...
> I'm still wondering what such a
> thing could have started a flury of inflamatory mails...
Easy.... "Larry".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 10/29/13 8:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen a écrit :
> Thank you, thank you, thank you, Emmanuel, for reminding us of my first response to JIRA LEGAL-179:
>
>
>
>> in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote :
>> "CC-BY license is for a specification, not software directly"
>
>
> That is absolutely correct.
>
>
>
> As the W3C attorney explained when he described the purpose of the CC-BY experiment, /specifications/ and /software/ are no longer easily distinguishable at W3C. The debate about this was particularly pronounced in the HTML Working Group. I wasn't there at that time, but this is how it was described when we subsequently discussed it in W3C PSIG:
>
>
>
> "This argument is at the core of a long dispute between Larry Masinter and
>
> Ian Hickson. If a specification is just abstract rules for implementation, one
>
> "uses" the specification to implement code. Masinter argued for such
>
> specifications. But if the pseudo-code and code serves as a specification
>
> and as a reference code at the same time, using that code or pseudo-code,
>
> transforming it automatically into code and putting it in a new context is generating
>
> legal problems. Problems that nobody wants, but that interfere with the entire
>
> development process and standardization."
>
>
>
> Like it or not, Apache and everyone else is or will be implementing /software/ by copying and creating derivative works of pseudo-code in W3C /specifications/. At Apache, we like to respect W3C's specification licenses. But the creation of derivative works is expressly prohibited by the W3C Document License.
First of all, I'd like to debunk a myth :
Psudo-code is *not* code. It's basically what we call an algorithm. That
some layers confurse those two terms is understandable. Larry, you can't
make ths confusion, being a layer *and* a coder.
Now, that some specification is associated with some reference
implementation sounds quite usual for us, Java coders and JSR
implementaters. Hopefully, we all know that the RI is not and should not
be included copycat into our own implementation. This is quite clear,
for years.
Therefore, I don't think we have -yet- a problem. We have to be extra
cautious (and I thik we ae for years) that nobody at The ASF does such a
simple mistake...
>
>
>
> in W3C PSIG we discussed various ways to change the W3C Document License to allow implementation of W3C /specifications/ in FOSS /software/, namely how to let FOSS communities freely create derivative works of /software/ within /specifications/ without creating derivative works of the /specifications/ themselves. We found it impossible to define those terms precisely, and impossibly burdensome to require engineers to mark the content of their /specifications/ so as to clearly identify the /software/ portions therein.
Again, we aren't creating derivative work of the specification at The ASF.
>
>
>
> The solutions we discussed included other licensing alternatives, such as additions or changes to the W3C Document License; a separate addendum (the so-called "PSIG License" in its draft form) for specifications that contain software or pseudo-code; and two versions of Creative Commons licenses (CC0 and CC-BY) that both expressed the spirit of free W3C licensing albeit with entirely different attribution philosophies.
>
>
>
> W3C is now back to discussing licensing alternatives, since CC-BY apparently won't cut it with this community.
>
>
>
> I would really prefer it if Apache members led that discussion from the FOSS community perspective, rather than wait until one of our projects decides to implement some future version of an HTML or other W3C /specification/ in /software/ under some as-yet-unknown experimental license.
Again, I don't see the issue here. Just because the W3C is fuzzy about
the way to deal with the code they are including in the specification,
should not have any impact on us ATM.
And again, until we have a project starting to implement anything
produced by the W3, that could possibly infringe any unkwon or known
licence, I would suggest that we keep lobbying at the W3C so that they
decide to clarify their position. That does not have to impact any of
our current policy or activity, IMO. I'm still wondering what such a
thing could have started a flury of inflamatory mails...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Thank you, thank you, thank you, Emmanuel, for reminding us of my first
> response to JIRA LEGAL-179:****
>
> ** **
>
> > in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote : ****
>
> > "CC-BY license is for a specification, not software directly"****
>
> ** **
>
> That is absolutely correct. ****
>
> ** **
>
> As the W3C attorney explained when he described the purpose of the CC-BY
> experiment, /specifications/ and /software/ are no longer easily
> distinguishable at W3C. The debate about this was particularly pronounced
> in the HTML Working Group. I wasn't there at that time, but this is how it
> was described when we subsequently discussed it in W3C PSIG:****
>
> ** **
>
> "This argument is at the core of a long dispute between Larry Masinter and
> ****
>
> Ian Hickson. If a specification is just abstract rules for implementation,
> one****
>
> "uses" the specification to implement code. Masinter argued for such ****
>
> specifications. But if the pseudo-code and code serves as a specification*
> ***
>
> and as a reference code at the same time, using that code or pseudo-code,*
> ***
>
> transforming it automatically into code and putting it in a new context is
> generating****
>
> legal problems. Problems that nobody wants, but that interfere with the
> entire****
>
> development process and standardization."****
>
> ** **
>
> Like it or not, Apache and everyone else is or will be implementing
> /software/ by copying and creating derivative works of pseudo-code in W3C
> /specifications/. At Apache, we like to respect W3C's specification
> licenses. But the creation of derivative works is expressly prohibited by
> the W3C Document License.****
>
> ** **
>
> in W3C PSIG we discussed various ways to change the W3C Document License
> to allow implementation of W3C /specifications/ in FOSS /software/, namely
> how to let FOSS communities freely create derivative works of /software/
> within /specifications/ without creating derivative works of the
> /specifications/ themselves. We found it impossible to define those terms
> precisely, and impossibly burdensome to require engineers to mark the
> content of their /specifications/ so as to clearly identify the /software/
> portions therein.****
>
> ** **
>
> The solutions we discussed included other licensing alternatives, such as
> additions or changes to the W3C Document License; a separate addendum (the
> so-called "PSIG License" in its draft form) for specifications that contain
> software or pseudo-code; and two versions of Creative Commons licenses (CC0
> and CC-BY) that both expressed the spirit of free W3C licensing albeit with
> entirely different attribution philosophies.****
>
> ** **
>
> W3C is now back to discussing licensing alternatives, since CC-BY
> apparently won't cut it with this community. ****
>
> **
>
BZZT. Here you say "CC-BY apparently won't cut it," then:
> **
>
> I would really prefer it if Apache members led that discussion from the
> FOSS community perspective, rather than wait until one of our projects
> decides to implement some future version of an HTML or other W3C
> /specification/ in /software/ under some as-yet-unknown experimental
> license.****
>
> **
>
It is your right to be frustrated by the unwritten policy about not dealing
in hypotheticals, but don't pretend the deferral is a rejection.
Portraying the situation in a way other than what you (surely, by now)
know it to be cannot be considered productive and (I can't figure out how
to put this any more gently) certainly doesn't exemplify the kind of
attention to detail one would desire in anyone, let alone an attorney,
whose advice he was considering, in any context.
Presumably you yourself were pushing for a positive resolution to the CC-BY
issue, therefore I will assume that in your professional opinion no legal
issues would arise. I've not inspected the license, but if allowing
projects to use code licensed thereby would not cause the ASF to violate
its own *non-legal*, but "just because that's how we want to operate"
principles, then there is no reason to believe that at whatever point a
resolution is forced, it will be decided in the affirmative. If not, maybe
that will be a horrible unfortunate tragedy, but life will go on. The
creator of a license should simply create their work according to whatever
principles are important to *that entity*, and if two organizations find
that they have compatible principles, they can play together. If not, see
you around, no hard feelings. If W3C needs the ASF to tell them what they
can/should put in their license, that seems to be a symptom of something
wrong with their process, not ours.
Matt
> **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> Lawrence Rosen****
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)****
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482****
>
> Office: 707-485-1242****
>
> Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:36 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
>
> ** **
>
> Larry,****
>
> ** **
>
> in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote : " CC-BY license is for a
> specification, not software directly"****
>
> ** **
>
> On the www.apache.org/foundation page, I read :****
>
> ** **
>
> " Through a collaborative and meritocratic development process known as
> The Apache Way, Apache™ projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely available
> **software** products"****
>
> ** **
>
> I conclude abruptly that, as The ASF write softwares, not specifications,
> I don't see the need to add CC-By as a third party compatible licence.****
>
> ** **
>
> I don't understand all this noise made about something that, AFAICU, does
> not concern us...****
>
> ** **
>
> Moreover, when the time will come for someone to actually write a
> specificiation under the ASF umbrella, specification connected to the W3C
> work, then we can reconsider this position.****
>
> ** **
>
> Can we focus on real problems, and problems that we are facing now,
> instead of fighting over hypothetical issues ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Side note : not to mention the various aggressions I have read on the
> board/members/legal mailing list...****
>
> At some point, can't anyone realise that, as Churchill said : "this is not
> because we disagree that you are right" ?****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> Regards,****
>
> Cordialement,****
>
> Emmanuel Lécharny****
>
> www.iktek.com ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------****
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org****
>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org****
>
> ** **
>
RE: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Emmanuel, for reminding us of my first response to JIRA LEGAL-179:
> in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote :
> "CC-BY license is for a specification, not software directly"
That is absolutely correct.
As the W3C attorney explained when he described the purpose of the CC-BY experiment, /specifications/ and /software/ are no longer easily distinguishable at W3C. The debate about this was particularly pronounced in the HTML Working Group. I wasn't there at that time, but this is how it was described when we subsequently discussed it in W3C PSIG:
"This argument is at the core of a long dispute between Larry Masinter and
Ian Hickson. If a specification is just abstract rules for implementation, one
"uses" the specification to implement code. Masinter argued for such
specifications. But if the pseudo-code and code serves as a specification
and as a reference code at the same time, using that code or pseudo-code,
transforming it automatically into code and putting it in a new context is generating
legal problems. Problems that nobody wants, but that interfere with the entire
development process and standardization."
Like it or not, Apache and everyone else is or will be implementing /software/ by copying and creating derivative works of pseudo-code in W3C /specifications/. At Apache, we like to respect W3C's specification licenses. But the creation of derivative works is expressly prohibited by the W3C Document License.
in W3C PSIG we discussed various ways to change the W3C Document License to allow implementation of W3C /specifications/ in FOSS /software/, namely how to let FOSS communities freely create derivative works of /software/ within /specifications/ without creating derivative works of the /specifications/ themselves. We found it impossible to define those terms precisely, and impossibly burdensome to require engineers to mark the content of their /specifications/ so as to clearly identify the /software/ portions therein.
The solutions we discussed included other licensing alternatives, such as additions or changes to the W3C Document License; a separate addendum (the so-called "PSIG License" in its draft form) for specifications that contain software or pseudo-code; and two versions of Creative Commons licenses (CC0 and CC-BY) that both expressed the spirit of free W3C licensing albeit with entirely different attribution philosophies.
W3C is now back to discussing licensing alternatives, since CC-BY apparently won't cut it with this community.
I would really prefer it if Apache members led that discussion from the FOSS community perspective, rather than wait until one of our projects decides to implement some future version of an HTML or other W3C /specification/ in /software/ under some as-yet-unknown experimental license.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:elecharny@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:36 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Larry,
in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote : " CC-BY license is for a specification, not software directly"
On the <http://www.apache.org/foundation> www.apache.org/foundation page, I read :
" Through a collaborative and meritocratic development process known as The Apache Way, Apache™ projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely available **software** products"
I conclude abruptly that, as The ASF write softwares, not specifications, I don't see the need to add CC-By as a third party compatible licence.
I don't understand all this noise made about something that, AFAICU, does not concern us...
Moreover, when the time will come for someone to actually write a specificiation under the ASF umbrella, specification connected to the W3C work, then we can reconsider this position.
Can we focus on real problems, and problems that we are facing now, instead of fighting over hypothetical issues ?
Side note : not to mention the various aggressions I have read on the board/members/legal mailing list...
At some point, can't anyone realise that, as Churchill said : "this is not because we disagree that you are right" ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
<http://www.iktek.com> www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@apache.org> legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Apache's Third Party Licensing Policy
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Larry,
in your first response in the JIRA, you wrote : " CC-BY license is for a
specification, not software directly"
On the www.apache.org/foundation page, I read :
" Through a collaborative and meritocratic development process known as
The Apache Way, Apache™ projects deliver enterprise-grade, freely
available **software** products"
I conclude abruptly that, as The ASF write softwares, not
specifications, I don't see the need to add CC-By as a third party
compatible licence.
I don't understand all this noise made about something that, AFAICU,
does not concern us...
Moreover, when the time will come for someone to actually write a
specificiation under the ASF umbrella, specification connected to the
W3C work, then we can reconsider this position.
Can we focus on real problems, and problems that we are facing now,
instead of fighting over hypothetical issues ?
Side note : not to mention the various aggressions I have read on the
board/members/legal mailing list...
At some point, can't anyone realise that, as Churchill said : "this is
not because we disagree that you are right" ?
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org