You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2010/06/04 21:10:20 UTC
WebM license modification
Google has pushed some changes for their WebM licenses - including
revised patent language. They now have a blog post up at:
http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/changes-to-webm-open-source-license.html
Chris had asked me about these changes and I believe that they should
now be compatible with our license - but, now that it's out in the
open (har har har), what do others think?
Notably, http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ has a phrase that says:
---
This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of this implementation.
---
I think this is line with our patent scope position as described in the FAQ:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
So, I believe this license should now fall under Category
A...but...well, IANAL. =)
Thanks. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: WebM license modification
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Category A is appropriate. Congratulations to Google for a good license for
this important technology.
/Larry
bcc: Chris DiBona
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
> Yandell
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:09 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: WebM license modification
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> >> Google has pushed some changes for their WebM licenses - including
> >> revised patent language. They now have a blog post up at:
> >>
> >> http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/changes-to-webm-open-source-
> license.html
> >>
> >> Chris had asked me about these changes and I believe that they
> should
> >> now be compatible with our license - but, now that it's out in the
> >> open (har har har), what do others think?
> >>
> >> Notably, http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ has a phrase
> that says:
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a
> >> consequence of further modification of this implementation.
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I think this is line with our patent scope position as described in
> the FAQ:
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
> >>
> >> So, I believe this license should now fall under Category
> >> A...but...well, IANAL. =)
> >
> > I have no problem with adding
> > http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ as a recognized BSD
> > variant on the following page:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> Both the license and the additional IP grant look category A. I'm
> happy for either both or the combination to be in there.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: WebM license modification
Posted by Chris DiBona <cd...@google.com>.
Hey;
So now I have a bit of time, I can answer this a bit more
cogently/completely. See below.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> While I'm +1 for Google's WebM license and glad to see them adopt it, I've
> found a few things in their license rationale and FAQ that seem discordant.
> What does this mean:
>
> Why didn't you use the Apache license?
>
> The Apache license is very similar in effect to this license
> in that it offers a permissive copyright license and a patent
> grant. The Apache license is, however, deemed incompatible
> with a number of projects that might make use of VP8, so we
> were unable to maintain compatibility with these projects and
> choose the Apache license.
>
> For the record, which projects consider the Apache license incompatible and
> why? I realize this used to be thought the case for GPLv2, but that was
> based on a misunderstanding within FSF about the legal effect of the Apache
> license. Are there any other projects out there that still resist
> incorporating Apache code?
>
Many fsf aligned gplv2 projects reject the apache license outright, but that
wasn't the primary reason we went with BSD. We really needed webm to be very
very compatible with webkit, android, chromium, ffmpeg and consumable by
corporations for closed source projects. We also, as you know, like ship
projects with a minimum number of licenses. BSD was right for this use.
> I also noted the following in Chris DiBona's posted rationale for the WebM
> license:
>
> Chris DiBona wrote:
> > As it was originally written, if a patent action was brought
> > against Google, the patent license terminated. This provision
> > itself is not unusual in an OSS license, and similar provisions
> > exist in the 2nd Apache License and in version 3 of the GPL.
> > The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just
> > rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2
> > incompatible. Also, in doing this, we effectively created a
> > potentially new open source copyright license, something we
> > are loath to do.
>
> There are existing OSI-approved licenses, including licenses compatible
> with
> both GPLv3 and Apache, that terminate both patent and copyright licenses if
> the licensor's software is accused of patent infringement. This is on
> purpose. Most contributors don't own patents, so they want to use their
> copyrights to defend themselves against patent infringement lawsuits. I
> wouldn't blame Google if it licensed WebM software that way too, and it is
> certainly not incompatible with FOSS licenses.
>
> The reason this concerns me is that the Apache "Software License Criteria"
> [1] lists such licenses (i.e., AFL 3.0) under Category A, which means that
> Apache software may contain such works, which means that GPLv3 code that
> incorporates Apache software may contain such works, which means that these
> licenses are both compatible and incompatible with GPLv3. Huh? For the
> record, I think FSF and Google are wrong if they really consider such
> licenses incompatible with GPLv3 or with FOSS licenses in general.
>
> I actually don't think they are incompatible, but there is also a
perception problem that we worry about in our group. If we release under a
license that isn't the big '5' (mit, gpl, lgpl, bsd, apache) people will
read motivations into the release. We also like to stick with the 'popular'
licenses for the communities that they bring along with them.
Partly, we also don't really have the time to do the end user education that
picking the afl would require of us. It stinks for newer licenses like yours
to hear "be more popular" but we're kind of in chicken and egg for a variety
of new licenses (and also one of the reasons I don't like new licenses being
created. Maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to do the work?)
Chris
> /Larry
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
>
> bcc: Chris DiBona, Laura Majerus
>
>
>
--
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source and Developer programs can be found at
http://code.google.com
Personal Site and Weblog: http://dibona.com
RE: WebM license modification
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
While I'm +1 for Google's WebM license and glad to see them adopt it, I've
found a few things in their license rationale and FAQ that seem discordant.
What does this mean:
Why didn't you use the Apache license?
The Apache license is very similar in effect to this license
in that it offers a permissive copyright license and a patent
grant. The Apache license is, however, deemed incompatible
with a number of projects that might make use of VP8, so we
were unable to maintain compatibility with these projects and
choose the Apache license.
For the record, which projects consider the Apache license incompatible and
why? I realize this used to be thought the case for GPLv2, but that was
based on a misunderstanding within FSF about the legal effect of the Apache
license. Are there any other projects out there that still resist
incorporating Apache code?
I also noted the following in Chris DiBona's posted rationale for the WebM
license:
Chris DiBona wrote:
> As it was originally written, if a patent action was brought
> against Google, the patent license terminated. This provision
> itself is not unusual in an OSS license, and similar provisions
> exist in the 2nd Apache License and in version 3 of the GPL.
> The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just
> rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2
> incompatible. Also, in doing this, we effectively created a
> potentially new open source copyright license, something we
> are loath to do.
There are existing OSI-approved licenses, including licenses compatible with
both GPLv3 and Apache, that terminate both patent and copyright licenses if
the licensor's software is accused of patent infringement. This is on
purpose. Most contributors don't own patents, so they want to use their
copyrights to defend themselves against patent infringement lawsuits. I
wouldn't blame Google if it licensed WebM software that way too, and it is
certainly not incompatible with FOSS licenses.
The reason this concerns me is that the Apache "Software License Criteria"
[1] lists such licenses (i.e., AFL 3.0) under Category A, which means that
Apache software may contain such works, which means that GPLv3 code that
incorporates Apache software may contain such works, which means that these
licenses are both compatible and incompatible with GPLv3. Huh? For the
record, I think FSF and Google are wrong if they really consider such
licenses incompatible with GPLv3 or with FOSS licenses in general.
/Larry
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
bcc: Chris DiBona, Laura Majerus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: WebM license modification
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> Google has pushed some changes for their WebM licenses - including
>> revised patent language. They now have a blog post up at:
>>
>> http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/changes-to-webm-open-source-license.html
>>
>> Chris had asked me about these changes and I believe that they should
>> now be compatible with our license - but, now that it's out in the
>> open (har har har), what do others think?
>>
>> Notably, http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ has a phrase that says:
>>
>> ---
>> This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a
>> consequence of further modification of this implementation.
>> ---
>>
>> I think this is line with our patent scope position as described in the FAQ:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
>>
>> So, I believe this license should now fall under Category
>> A...but...well, IANAL. =)
>
> I have no problem with adding
> http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ as a recognized BSD
> variant on the following page:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
Both the license and the additional IP grant look category A. I'm
happy for either both or the combination to be in there.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: WebM license modification
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Google has pushed some changes for their WebM licenses - including
> revised patent language. They now have a blog post up at:
>
> http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/06/changes-to-webm-open-source-license.html
>
> Chris had asked me about these changes and I believe that they should
> now be compatible with our license - but, now that it's out in the
> open (har har har), what do others think?
>
> Notably, http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ has a phrase that says:
>
> ---
> This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a
> consequence of further modification of this implementation.
> ---
>
> I think this is line with our patent scope position as described in the FAQ:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
>
> So, I believe this license should now fall under Category
> A...but...well, IANAL. =)
I have no problem with adding
http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ as a recognized BSD
variant on the following page:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> Thanks. -- justin
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org