You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2014/11/20 18:26:32 UTC
Wikipedia Content
Hi,
Apache Flex has a Wikipedia page here [1].
Apache Flex wants to copy content from that page and display it in an app.
The nightly build is here [2]. Click on the “Apache Flex Components and
Features” and click on one of the releases. The text is not linked. It
has been copied into the .mxml file you can see in the lower right pane.
Wikipedia content is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. I
recently found a post in the archives that indicated that CC-A is Category
A, but CC-A-SA is not. Is that true?
Then on the Legal Resolved page [3] it says that you can include
“unmodified media” that is CC-A-SA. Is Wikipedia text included under
“unmodified media” or was the word “media” chosen (instead of “content” or
“works”) because it was expected to be videos and other “binary” content?
Thanks,
-Alex
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Flex
[2] http://s.apache.org/sC4
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
The app (Tour De Flex) is here http://flex.apache.org/tourdeflex/index.html
Click on “Apache Flex Components and Features” then click on “Apache Flex 4.8” or any of the other releases.
Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Flex
Tour De Flex is a collection of examples, but the text copied from wikipedia isn’t really a part of a collection of text copied from other places.
-Alex
From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
Reply-To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>>, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
I said 'strong' because the GPL also identifies separate & independent works as not being derived/adaptions. They seem akin in their copyleftness.
From the original mail:
"Apache Flex wants to copy content from that page and display it in an app."
Baking the content in an application did not, without more information, sound like a separate & independent work to me. i.e it doesn't sound like a collection in the final product.
Hen
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>> wrote:
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
1. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
2. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is>> wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
FW: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of the CC-BY work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a Collection.
Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate CC-BY components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also *adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-BY components* must be under CC-BY.
As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-BY components* distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity requirement of CC-BY. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each Apache Collection.
To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content under CC-BY would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the obvious.
As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or "baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry for far too long.
[FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about "linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely use Creative Commons components.
/Larry
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Cc: Creative Commons
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
<snip>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Sorry for late reply... have been traveling. Will be back
online and avail Friday (the 12th) am. :)
> On Dec 9, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1, the first 2 paragraphs from Jim’s email need to be documented
> great advice and guidance.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>,
> "lrosen@rosenlaw.com" <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>
>> Thanks Jim,
>>
>> Maybe those first two paragraphs should get copied into the legal-resolved
>> page.
>>
>> Now can I get someone like you to decide on the specific Apache Flex
>> scenario? The legal-resolved page says that “unmodified media” is ok.
>> Flex copied text from a wikipedia page into one of its source files where
>> it is displayed in a UI. We updated LICENSE and NOTICE.
>>
>> Do we need to make changes?
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 12/4/14, 1:41 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is
>>> that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident
>>> in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
>>> *legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of
>>> said license would cause people to rethink their use of
>>> ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower
>>> to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not
>>> allow said license.
>>>
>>> As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve
>>> their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is
>>> for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in
>>> place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
>>> situation where "no legal advice is needed". As you say,
>>> a "yes and no" answer is one we wish to avoid, if in doing
>>> so could cause people to not use ASF resources.
>>>
>>> All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions
>>> can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping
>>> us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step
>>> on said toes :)
>>>
>>> Cheers! See you next week!
>>>
>>>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
>>>>
>>>> Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of
>>>> other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons
>>>> friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
>>>>
>>>> Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of
>>>> the CC-SA work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the
>>>> Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a
>>>> Collection.
>>>>
>>>> Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate
>>>> CC-SA components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also
>>>> *adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-SA
>>>> components* must be under CC-BY.
>>>>
>>>> As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do
>>>> not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components*
>>>> distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity
>>>> requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each
>>>> Apache Collection.
>>>>
>>>> To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content
>>>> under CC-SA would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache
>>>> Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave
>>>> alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>> As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have
>>>> eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are
>>>> clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse
>>>> people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or
>>>> "baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry
>>>> for far too long.
>>>>
>>>> [FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about
>>>> "linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow
>>>> such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects
>>>> would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and
>>>> the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream
>>>> users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to
>>>> bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
>>>>
>>>> As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software
>>>> Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely
>>>> use Creative Commons components.
>>>>
>>>> /Larry
>>>>
>>>> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
>>>> "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and
>>>> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative
>>>> work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or
>>>> artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic
>>>> adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
>>>> transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from
>>>> the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not
>>>> be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the
>>>> avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or
>>>> phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
>>>> moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the
>>>> purpose of this License.
>>>> "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as
>>>> encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
>>>> broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
>>>> Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
>>>> their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
>>>> included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
>>>> contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
>>>> themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
>>>> that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
>>>> defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Creative Commons
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
>>>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>>> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
+1, the first 2 paragraphs from Jim’s email need to be documented
great advice and guidance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 1:58 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>,
"lrosen@rosenlaw.com" <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>Thanks Jim,
>
>Maybe those first two paragraphs should get copied into the legal-resolved
>page.
>
>Now can I get someone like you to decide on the specific Apache Flex
>scenario? The legal-resolved page says that “unmodified media” is ok.
>Flex copied text from a wikipedia page into one of its source files where
>it is displayed in a UI. We updated LICENSE and NOTICE.
>
>Do we need to make changes?
>-Alex
>
>On 12/4/14, 1:41 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>>Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is
>>that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident
>>in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
>>*legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of
>>said license would cause people to rethink their use of
>>ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower
>>to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not
>>allow said license.
>>
>>As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve
>>their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is
>>for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in
>>place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
>>situation where "no legal advice is needed". As you say,
>>a "yes and no" answer is one we wish to avoid, if in doing
>>so could cause people to not use ASF resources.
>>
>>All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions
>>can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping
>>us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step
>>on said toes :)
>>
>>Cheers! See you next week!
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
>>>
>>> Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of
>>>other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons
>>>friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
>>>
>>> Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
>>>
>>> Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of
>>>the CC-SA work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the
>>>Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a
>>>Collection.
>>>
>>> Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate
>>>CC-SA components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also
>>>*adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-SA
>>>components* must be under CC-BY.
>>>
>>> As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do
>>>not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components*
>>>distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity
>>>requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each
>>>Apache Collection.
>>>
>>> To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content
>>>under CC-SA would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache
>>>Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave
>>>alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the
>>>obvious.
>>>
>>> As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have
>>>eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are
>>>clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse
>>>people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or
>>>"baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry
>>>for far too long.
>>>
>>> [FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about
>>>"linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow
>>>such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects
>>>would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and
>>>the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream
>>>users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to
>>>bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
>>>
>>> As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software
>>>Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely
>>>use Creative Commons components.
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
>>> "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and
>>>other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative
>>>work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or
>>>artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic
>>>adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
>>>transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from
>>>the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not
>>>be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the
>>>avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or
>>>phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
>>>moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the
>>>purpose of this License.
>>> "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as
>>>encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
>>>broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
>>>Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
>>>their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
>>>included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
>>>contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
>>>themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
>>>that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
>>>defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cc: Creative Commons
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
>>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Thanks Jim,
Maybe those first two paragraphs should get copied into the legal-resolved
page.
Now can I get someone like you to decide on the specific Apache Flex
scenario? The legal-resolved page says that “unmodified media” is ok.
Flex copied text from a wikipedia page into one of its source files where
it is displayed in a UI. We updated LICENSE and NOTICE.
Do we need to make changes?
-Alex
On 12/4/14, 1:41 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is
>that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident
>in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
>*legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of
>said license would cause people to rethink their use of
>ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower
>to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not
>allow said license.
>
>As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve
>their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is
>for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in
>place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
>situation where "no legal advice is needed". As you say,
>a "yes and no" answer is one we wish to avoid, if in doing
>so could cause people to not use ASF resources.
>
>All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions
>can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping
>us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step
>on said toes :)
>
>Cheers! See you next week!
>
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>
>> [Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
>>
>> Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of
>>other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons
>>friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
>>
>> Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
>>
>> Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of
>>the CC-SA work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the
>>Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a
>>Collection.
>>
>> Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate
>>CC-SA components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also
>>*adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-SA
>>components* must be under CC-BY.
>>
>> As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do
>>not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components*
>>distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity
>>requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each
>>Apache Collection.
>>
>> To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content
>>under CC-SA would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache
>>Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave
>>alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the obvious.
>>
>> As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have
>>eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are
>>clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse
>>people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or
>>"baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry
>>for far too long.
>>
>> [FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about
>>"linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow
>>such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects
>>would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and
>>the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream
>>users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to
>>bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
>>
>> As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software
>>Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely
>>use Creative Commons components.
>>
>> /Larry
>>
>> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
>> "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and
>>other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative
>>work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or
>>artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic
>>adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
>>transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from
>>the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not
>>be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the
>>avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or
>>phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
>>moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the
>>purpose of this License.
>> "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as
>>encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
>>broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
>>Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
>>their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
>>included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
>>contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
>>themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
>>that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
>>defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>>
>>
>> Cc: Creative Commons
>>
>>
>> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>> <snip>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is
that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident
in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
*legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of
said license would cause people to rethink their use of
ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower
to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not
allow said license.
As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve
their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is
for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in
place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
situation where "no legal advice is needed". As you say,
a "yes and no" answer is one we wish to avoid, if in doing
so could cause people to not use ASF resources.
All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions
can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping
us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step
on said toes :)
Cheers! See you next week!
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> [Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
>
> Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
>
> Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
>
> Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of the CC-SA work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a Collection.
>
> Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate CC-SA components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also *adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-SA components* must be under CC-BY.
>
> As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components* distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each Apache Collection.
>
> To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content under CC-SA would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the obvious.
>
> As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or "baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry for far too long.
>
> [FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about "linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
>
> As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely use Creative Commons components.
>
> /Larry
>
> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
> "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
> "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
>
> Cc: Creative Commons
>
>
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
> <snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
FW: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
[Resending with "CC-SA" throughout rather than CC-BY. Sorry! /LR]
Henri, this issue keeps coming up here! On your behalf and on behalf of other curious readers here on this list, I will ask our Creative Commons friends your question: "Is the CC-SA license GPL-like?"
Boldly presaging their answer, I will equivocate: "Yes and no."
Yes, it requires reciprocation by anyone who creates an Adaptation of the CC-SA work. No, it doesn't require anything more onerous than the Apache License for the mere incorporation of that work into a Collection.
Apache's rule should state that any Apache project can incorporate CC-SA components into an Apache Collection. Apache projects can also *adapt* such works, but then our *adapted* versions *of the CC-SA components* must be under CC-BY.
As for the "risk" to downstream users, there is none as long as they do not themselves create an Adaptation *of the CC-SA components* distributed in the Apache Collection but ignore the reciprocity requirement of CC-SA. That is why we create a NOTICE file with each Apache Collection.
To be practical, I can't imagine a situation where Wikipedia content under CC-SA would matter much anyway to any downstream user of an Apache Collection. Such components are easy for distributors to remove or leave alone. Let's not allow confusion over license terms overrule the obvious.
As to its literary comparison to GPLv2: The Creative Commons folks have eliminated GPL-like confusion in their licenses. Their licenses are clearer, less ambiguous, understood around the world, and do not confuse people with terms like "static and dynamic linking" or "combining" or "baking code into other code" that have influenced the software industry for far too long.
[FWIW, if it weren't for the rampant and self-inflicted confusion about "linking" with GPLv2 components, I would recommend that ASF also allow such GPL components in our Apache Collections. Of course Apache projects would have to be careful when they create Adaptations of such works and the NOTICE files would become even more relevant to some downstream users who are themselves distributors. Fortunately, I don't have to bring the GPLv2 or GPLv3 licenses up today.]
As long as we understand what Creative Commons and Apache Software Foundation both mean by *Adaptation* and *Collection* then we can safely use Creative Commons components.
/Larry
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Cc: Creative Commons
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 9:00 AM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
<snip>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
I said 'strong' because the GPL also identifies separate & independent
works as not being derived/adaptions. They seem akin in their copyleftness.
>From the original mail:
"Apache Flex wants to copy content from that page and display it in an app."
Baking the content in an application did not, without more information,
sound like a separate & independent work to me. i.e it doesn't sound like a
collection in the final product.
Hen
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
wrote:
> Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft
> license" in reference to CC-SA.
>
>
>
> Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The
> CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not
> be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this
> twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL
> language!
>
>
>
> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
>
> 1. *"Adaptation"* means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work
> and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative
> work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic
> work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations
> or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted
> including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a
> work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
> a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work
> in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an
> Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
> 2. *"Collection"* means a collection of literary or artistic works,
> such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or
> broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in
> Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of
> their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is
> included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other
> contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in
> themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work
> that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as
> defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
>
>
> */Larry*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app?
> It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
>
>
>
> Hen
>
> On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> wrote:
>
> 653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
>
> Luis
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
>
>
>
> On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net>
> wrote:
>
> For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to
> relicense to all authors, or?
>
>
>
> paul
>
>
>
> On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types
> of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content
> would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Here is the original post in this thread:
http://s.apache.org/WhH
Wikipedia content now exists unmodified in a source file of an Apache distribution and noted in LICENSE and NOTICE.
The RM pushed the bits Friday to here https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flex/tourdeflex/1.2/
Let us know if we have to make changes.
-Alex
From: Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>>
Date: Saturday, November 29, 2014 at 4:22 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>>
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
> By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
So what's wrong with that? Every customer of general purpose FOSS applications software that includes Linux, Android, Apache server, Hadoop, and the like, is already accepting that kind of licensing complexity!
It isn't even complexity. Both Apache and CC-SA licenses are completely satisfied by publishing licensing notices and pointing to the original source code. Everyone should already be doing that.
/Larry
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:48 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>; lrosen@rosenlaw.com<ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Ross Gardler wrote:
> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection
> under this license need to be shared under the same license.
No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.
And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA work all by itself, if any Apache downstream user would like to unbury it.
> ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand
> the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA)
> versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License
> or similar)
Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety of FOSS components in their software. Almost all respectable distributors and users of FOSS (and commercial) software nowadays require merely disclosure of all FOSS components and a list of all licenses that apply (including CC-SA and Apache). Those downstream users are perfectly able and willing to comply with all those FOSS licenses that are disclosed. [1] And with the source code they can make their own use and redistribution decisions.
The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.
Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.
/Larry
[1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm), Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For further information, see http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>; lrosen@rosenlaw.com<ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
Ross
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is>> wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');>> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
> By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
So what's wrong with that? Every customer of general purpose FOSS applications software that includes Linux, Android, Apache server, Hadoop, and the like, is already accepting that kind of licensing complexity!
It isn't even complexity. Both Apache and CC-SA licenses are completely satisfied by publishing licensing notices and pointing to the original source code. Everyone should already be doing that.
/Larry
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:48 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Ross Gardler wrote:
> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection
> under this license need to be shared under the same license.
No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.
And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA work all by itself, if any Apache downstream user would like to unbury it.
> ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand
> the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA)
> versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License
> or similar)
Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety of FOSS components in their software. Almost all respectable distributors and users of FOSS (and commercial) software nowadays require merely disclosure of all FOSS components and a list of all licenses that apply (including CC-SA and Apache). Those downstream users are perfectly able and willing to comply with all those FOSS licenses that are disclosed. [1] And with the source code they can make their own use and redistribution decisions.
The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.
Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.
/Larry
[1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm), Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For further information, see <http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810> http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> ; lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
Ross
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is <ma...@lu.is> > wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex <http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia> &lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');> > wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');> > wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
> Policy and religion are roommates.
Policy and religion need to grow up and move out on their own. One can become a priest with access to God, the other a FOSS programmer with access to the entire world of FOSS software.
> All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions can be adjusted as time goes by, ....
They must.
> ... a "no brainer" situation where "no legal advice is needed" :)
Why would a lawyer allow you to get away with such a ridiculous option, especially when the brain should be our favorite organ?
See you next week! I have still to get my slides ready but it should be easy. All I have to do is introduce the rest of you. Get ready for a long day, and save the evening for an enjoyable dinner out with friends and colleagues. Fortunately I still have those in the legal community even if ASF has proven mostly a dud in that respect.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:37 PM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
Policy and religion are roommates. The issue, as I see it, is that we (the ASF) want people to remain comfortable and confident in their choice of ASF projects; so, for example, even if
*legally* we could allow a certain license, if inclusion of said license would cause people to rethink their use of ASF code, or require them to pull in more legal brainpower to mull things thru, then, policy-wise, we tend to not allow said license.
As we all know, the more than an entity needs to involve their legal resources into a decision, the harder it is for them to reach closure on said decision; so we have in place a policy which makes use of ASF code a "no brainer"
situation where "no legal advice is needed" :)
All this means, of course, is that such policy decisions can be adjusted as time goes by, and I appreciate you keeping us on our toes in that regards, even if, at times, you step on said toes :)
Cheers! See you next week!
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > the fact that you fail to understand the logic behind this policy is no longer a concern of mine. Furthermore, having you, our anyone else, explain the legal argument, which I believe I already understand, will not change or policy.
>
> Ross, I am not stupid. I know this is policy and not a legal issue, because the legal issue is so obviously settled!!! I prefer to call it "religion" rather than "policy" because it is so poorly based in logic.
>
> As for changing policy – of course that's why I wrote my emails and why I solicited input from Creative Commons attorneys. I was hoping that you would realiz and* the legal issues and change your mind. But it remains obvious that you and several others completely misunderstand the way those CC licenses actually work.
>
> Your refusal to understand the use case for the CC licenses is mysterious. I noted previously that W3C intends to use CC licenses for its W3C. So be it. But Tim Berners-Lee has already committed to this outcome, so be prepared to change your silly policy at least for THIS use case!
>
> I was elected as a member of Apache for several reasons. And I speak up here for those same reasons. This is my expertise, my profession, my career, and my strong support for FOSS that makes me speak up. I will continue to do so until you change Apache's policy. You can't shut me up.
>
> I wrote the following several weeks ago to an attorney friend of mine in Europe who asked whether I would recommend ASF for a FOSS project. I recommended no. I copied Jim at the time. You should read this and understand where I'm coming from.
>
> Please note, however, that I am no longer working with Apache. I remain a member of the Foundation (partly out of spite so I can vote Software Foundation as a home for new projects. They have their hands full over there already.
>
>
> I intend to speak up like this forever until you come to your senses. And if you don't come to your senses, then I will dedicate myself to helping development.
>
> /Larry
>
> P.S. Nothing I write to you about this is intended to be confidential! Feel free to forward it to others or publish it on the Apache blog!
>
>
> From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 8:41 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> No, it's a policy not a legal issue. I have learned nothing new in
> this latest rehash of this old discussion. I do understand you don't
>
> Since you are no longer a Member, the fact that you fail to understand the logic behind this policy is no longer a concern of mine. Furthermore, having you, our anyone else, explain the legal argument, which I believe I already understand, will not change or policy.
>
> If a compelling case is made, and supported by the membership, then policy may be changed. This time around is a little different to every other time, since a project actually has a use case. For this reason I have not expressed an opinion on list, other than to reiterate the policy.
>
> I leave it to VP Legal to consider the specifics of this use case.
>
> Ross
>
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>
> From: Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: 12/3/2014 8:26 AM
> To: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
> Did Kat Walsh's reply make you more accepting of Wikipedia content?
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:48 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
>
>
>
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:43 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the
> > collection
>
> > under this license need to be shared under the same license.
>
>
>
> No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.
>
>
>
> And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA work all by itself, if any user would like to unbury it.
>
>
>
> > ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to
> > understand
>
> > the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under
> > CC-SA)
>
> > versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software
> > License
>
> > or similar)
>
>
>
> Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety of FOSS components redistribution decisions.
>
>
>
> The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.
>
>
>
> Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> [1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm), Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For further information, see http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
>
>
>
> Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
>
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen
> Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
>
>
>
> Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work confuse this license with early GPL language!
>
>
>
> The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
>
> a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
>
> b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
>
>
>
> If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
>
>
>
> Hen
>
> On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> wrote:
>
>> 653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
>>
>> Luis
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_
>> Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
By “this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license.” I meant the items in the collection under this license.
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 3:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Ross Gardler wrote:
> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection
> under this license need to be shared under the same license.
No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.
And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA work all by itself, if any Apache downstream user would like to unbury it.
> ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand
> the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA)
> versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License
> or similar)
Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety of FOSS components in their software. Almost all respectable distributors and users of FOSS (and commercial) software nowadays require merely disclosure of all FOSS components and a list of all licenses that apply (including CC-SA and Apache). Those downstream users are perfectly able and willing to comply with all those FOSS licenses that are disclosed. [1] And with the source code they can make their own use and redistribution decisions.
The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.
Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.
/Larry
[1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm), Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For further information, see http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>; lrosen@rosenlaw.com<ma...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
Ross
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is>> wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');>> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection
> under this license need to be shared under the same license.
No it does not! What you say is true for an Adaptation but not a Collection! Please reread the definitions in the license carefully. Perhaps you are assuming that the CC-SA license is as awkwardly written or grudgingly interpreted as GPLv2, but it isn't.
And of course the generous CC-SA license continues to apply in perpetuity to the tiny CC-SA work all by itself, if any Apache downstream user would like to unbury it.
> ... in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand
> the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA)
> versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License
> or similar)
Fortunately for them, most of our downstream users and redistributors incorporate a wide variety of FOSS components in their software. Almost all respectable distributors and users of FOSS (and commercial) software nowadays require merely disclosure of all FOSS components and a list of all licenses that apply (including CC-SA and Apache). Those downstream users are perfectly able and willing to comply with all those FOSS licenses that are disclosed. [1] And with the source code they can make their own use and redistribution decisions.
The only ones on this legal-discuss@apache list who have ever objected to CC-SA are a few lawyers representing large distributors of Apache software who refuse to modify their existing commercial licenses to tell their customers that CC-SA components may be inside, or who won't take the time to replace components they don't like in software they distribute. We shouldn't really care about their commercial licensing issues, as long as our Apache Collections remains in perpetuity under the Apache license and the CC-SA components remain under CC-SA.
Nobody else has reason to be afraid of CC-SA that I'm aware of, but please speak up here.
/Larry
[1] At the PLI "Open Source and Free Software 2014" program on December 10, David Marr (Qualcomm), Karen Copenhaver (Choate), and Jilayne Lovejoy (ARM) will describe how businesses are regularizing the open source supply chain ("OpenChain"). They gave this presentation previously at a FOSS workshop in Barcelona and it was well received. Also, Kat Walsh (Creative Commons) will speak about CC licenses for software standards and other works important nowadays to Apache. For further information, see <http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810> http://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Open_Source_and_Free_Software_2014_Benefits/_/N-4kZ1z12esr?ID=178810.
From: Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 2:11 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
Ross
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is <ma...@lu.is> > wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex <http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia> &lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');> > wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');> > wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
SA stands for “Share Alike” – this means that the contents of the collection under this license need to be shared under the same license. This is a restriction not imposed by the Apache Software License and thus one that we would (in my opinion) like to avoid so as to keep things simple for our users.
Our goal is that our software is redistributable (with modifications or otherwise) under the Apache Software License or licenses that are equally permissive.
I’m not sure of the full context of the discussion below, but in general we do not want our downstream users to have to understand the difference between making and sharing an edit to file A (under CC-SA) versus making and sharing an edit to file B (under Apache Software License or similar).
Ross
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: Wikipedia Content
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
1. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
2. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is>> wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');>> wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');>> wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
RE: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Henri, I don't know what you mean by the phrase "a very strong copyleft license" in reference to CC-SA.
Apache is presumably going to include these works in our Collections. The CC-SA license provides that "a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License." It says this twice to make sure that nobody will confuse this license with early GPL language!
The following definitions in CC-SA are important:
a. "Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
b. "Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
/Larry
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@apache.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 6:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Content
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app? It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <luis@lu.is <ma...@lu.is> > wrote:
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex <http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia> &lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');> > wrote:
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');> > wrote:
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
If baked in, wouldn't the CC-SA affect the overall licensing of the app?
It's always seemed a very strong copyleft license to me.
Hen
On Thursday, November 20, 2014, Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is> wrote:
> 653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
>
> Luis
>
> [1]
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
>
> On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','paul@hoplahup.net');>> wrote:
>
>> For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to
>> relicense to all authors, or?
>>
>> paul
>>
>> On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','kevan.miller@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types
>> of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content
>> would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
>>
>>
>>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Luis Villa <lu...@lu.is>.
653 authors in this case[1], so unlikely.
Luis
[1]
http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=Apache_Flex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
On Thu Nov 20 2014 at 12:38:15 PM Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net> wrote:
> For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to
> relicense to all authors, or?
>
> paul
>
> On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types
> of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content
> would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
>
>
>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net>.
For a single wikipedia page, it must be doable to ask permission to relicense to all authors, or?
paul
On 20 nov. 2014, at 18:41, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
>
Re: Wikipedia Content
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
I think the "unmodified media" and Legal Resolved entry for CC-A-SA
originated here -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-4
I do not think that "media" was chosen to try and exclude specific types of
content (e.g. your wikipedia content). IMO, using the wikipedia content
would be fine, provided you meet the attribution requirements.
--kevan
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apache Flex has a Wikipedia page here [1].
>
> Apache Flex wants to copy content from that page and display it in an app.
> The nightly build is here [2]. Click on the "Apache Flex Components and
> Features" and click on one of the releases. The text is not linked. It
> has been copied into the .mxml file you can see in the lower right pane.
>
> Wikipedia content is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. I
> recently found a post in the archives that indicated that CC-A is Category
> A, but CC-A-SA is not. Is that true?
>
> Then on the Legal Resolved page [3] it says that you can include
> "unmodified media" that is CC-A-SA. Is Wikipedia text included under
> "unmodified media" or was the word "media" chosen (instead of "content" or
> "works") because it was expected to be videos and other "binary" content?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Flex
> [2] http://s.apache.org/sC4
> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>