You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com> on 2013/01/10 06:10:55 UTC
Modifying license for personal use
Hi,
I want to change the "Grant of copyright license" section to be more
explicit. Most of the words have been taken from the MIT license. I am
not a lawyer but want to get a opinion on whether its better than the
original ?
I am aware that I can no longer call it apache or use the name apache
and I will do that on my own risk - which is fine for me :) Also I am
aware that Apache is well known and accepted license.
Original :
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.
Updated:
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 without restriction, including without limitation to
use, copy, modify, merge, reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
publish, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute
and/or sell copies of the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
Object form with or without fees.
Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
It might be helpful if you identified why you believe those sections are a burden. From my reading those sub-sections are all extremely beneficial to the recipient of the distributed work.
Ralph
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:49 PM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Craig L Russell
> <cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> If you are trying to have people use your code but not redistribute it, I
>> don't understand why you want an open-source-like license in the first
>> place.
>
> Sorry I dint explain myself clear enough.
>
> The aim was to make it easier to redistribute - by not including the
> sub-sections 1, 2 & 4 but keeping the sub-section 3 intact of the
> redistribution clause. Is it possible for Apache to do something about
> that ?
>
> Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> If you are trying to have people use your code but not redistribute it, I
> don't understand why you want an open-source-like license in the first
> place.
Sorry I dint explain myself clear enough.
The aim was to make it easier to redistribute - by not including the
sub-sections 1, 2 & 4 but keeping the sub-section 3 intact of the
redistribution clause. Is it possible for Apache to do something about
that ?
Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi,
IANAL. You can certainly remove any sections that don't please you.
But if you choose to use a license that lots of people know about (the
Apache license) and then change it, you might as well just go and
create your own license. No one will recognize your license and have
any idea what it really means. And you will not get people to adopt
your code with a special license.
If you are trying to have people use your code but not redistribute
it, I don't understand why you want an open-source-like license in the
first place.
Regards,
Craig
On Jan 10, 2013, at 1:33 AM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> No, it is not better than the original. The Apache license
>> terms are based on actual things controlled by copyright (this
>> clause)
>> and patents (the clause after this). The MIT license is just a
>> jumble
>> of vague permissions that only cover a subset of both.
>
> Thanks for your input - it was very helpful.
>
> One last thing, in the "Redistribution." clause is it ok to remove the
> sub-sections 1, 2, & 4 ?
>
> ------------------------------
> 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work
> or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
> modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet
> the following conditions:
>
> 1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative
> Works a copy of this License; and
>
> 2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that You changed the files; and
>
> 3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that
> You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution
> notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that
> do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
>
> 4. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
> distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
> include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within
> such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any
> part of the ...
>
> Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> No, it is not better than the original. The Apache license
> terms are based on actual things controlled by copyright (this clause)
> and patents (the clause after this). The MIT license is just a jumble
> of vague permissions that only cover a subset of both.
Thanks for your input - it was very helpful.
One last thing, in the "Redistribution." clause is it ok to remove the
sub-sections 1, 2, & 4 ?
------------------------------
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work
or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet
the following conditions:
1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative
Works a copy of this License; and
2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that
You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution
notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that
do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
4. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within
such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any
part of the ...
Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Prashant Shah wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to change the "Grant of copyright license" section to be more
> explicit. Most of the words have been taken from the MIT license. I am
> not a lawyer but want to get a opinion on whether its better than the
> original ?
>
> I am aware that I can no longer call it apache or use the name apache
> and I will do that on my own risk - which is fine for me :) Also I am
> aware that Apache is well known and accepted license.
Right, that's fine.
> Original :
> 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.
>
> Updated:
> 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 without restriction, including without limitation to
> use, copy, modify, merge, reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
> publish, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute
> and/or sell copies of the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
> Object form with or without fees.
No, it is not better than the original. The Apache license
terms are based on actual things controlled by copyright (this clause)
and patents (the clause after this). The MIT license is just a jumble
of vague permissions that only cover a subset of both.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> You can "do" anything you want, the question is whether or
> not the resulting license is one that people will choose
> to accept when looking at code...
>
> For licenses to be officially recognized as Open Source,
> they must be approved by OSI and the license must adhere
> to the conditions of the OSD (The FSF has a similar process).
> By creating your own license, it is no longer OSI-approved
> and the the onus on "is this an open source license and
> is it safe to use" is placed on the end-user, and if its
> not on the OSI list, most developers (and pretty much
> all companies, gov't, etc) will refuse to use the code
> that's under that license.
Your point does makes sense. I will give it a second thought :)
Thanks and Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
You can "do" anything you want, the question is whether or
not the resulting license is one that people will choose
to accept when looking at code...
For licenses to be officially recognized as Open Source,
they must be approved by OSI and the license must adhere
to the conditions of the OSD (The FSF has a similar process).
By creating your own license, it is no longer OSI-approved
and the the onus on "is this an open source license and
is it safe to use" is placed on the end-user, and if its
not on the OSI list, most developers (and pretty much
all companies, gov't, etc) will refuse to use the code
that's under that license.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Creating your own "open source" license is pretty much
>> a guarantee that no one will use your code, since people
>> will see it's not OSI and/or FSF approved and pass on it.
>
> I read many licenses but none came close to Apache 2. I absolutely
> loved Apache 2 except for the "Redistribution" clause sub-sections 1,
> 2 & 4. I am not at all interested in creating another license, there
> are too many already - it will be just a waste of time plus I don't
> even have the slightest expertise to do that.
>
> So I am planning to just reuse Apache and remove the "Redistribution"
> clause sub-sections 1, 2 & 4 - that's all. No other changes. I joined
> to this mailing list just to get a sound opinion whether it's ok to do
> that. If there is any existing license that does that or if anyone
> else is interested in taking this forward - I will just use it :)
>
> It is not a major issue, just a minor thing that is bugging me too much :(
>
> Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Creating your own "open source" license is pretty much
> a guarantee that no one will use your code, since people
> will see it's not OSI and/or FSF approved and pass on it.
I read many licenses but none came close to Apache 2. I absolutely
loved Apache 2 except for the "Redistribution" clause sub-sections 1,
2 & 4. I am not at all interested in creating another license, there
are too many already - it will be just a waste of time plus I don't
even have the slightest expertise to do that.
So I am planning to just reuse Apache and remove the "Redistribution"
clause sub-sections 1, 2 & 4 - that's all. No other changes. I joined
to this mailing list just to get a sound opinion whether it's ok to do
that. If there is any existing license that does that or if anyone
else is interested in taking this forward - I will just use it :)
It is not a major issue, just a minor thing that is bugging me too much :(
Regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Creating your own "open source" license is pretty much
a guarantee that no one will use your code, since people
will see it's not OSI and/or FSF approved and pass on it.
On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:10 AM, Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to change the "Grant of copyright license" section to be more
> explicit. Most of the words have been taken from the MIT license. I am
> not a lawyer but want to get a opinion on whether its better than the
> original ?
>
> I am aware that I can no longer call it apache or use the name apache
> and I will do that on my own risk - which is fine for me :) Also I am
> aware that Apache is well known and accepted license.
>
> Original :
> 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.
>
> Updated:
> 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 without restriction, including without limitation to
> use, copy, modify, merge, reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
> publish, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute
> and/or sell copies of the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
> Object form with or without fees.
>
> Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Modifying license for personal use
Posted by Aahit <aa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Prashant,
This is fine, you can use the updated version.
Regards,
Aahit
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Prashant Shah <ps...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to change the "Grant of copyright license" section to be more
> explicit. Most of the words have been taken from the MIT license. I am
> not a lawyer but want to get a opinion on whether its better than the
> original ?
>
> I am aware that I can no longer call it apache or use the name apache
> and I will do that on my own risk - which is fine for me :) Also I am
> aware that Apache is well known and accepted license.
>
> Original :
> 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.
>
> Updated:
> 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 without restriction, including without limitation to
> use, copy, modify, merge, reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
> publish, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, distribute
> and/or sell copies of the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
> Object form with or without fees.
>
> Regards.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>