You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by ba...@apache.org on 2009/08/09 04:09:39 UTC
svn commit: r802475 [2/3] - in /infrastructure/site/trunk:
docs/legal/reports.html xdocs/legal/reports.xml
Modified: infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html?rev=802475&r1=802474&r2=802475&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html [utf-8] (original)
+++ infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/legal/reports.html [utf-8] Sun Aug 9 02:09:38 2009
@@ -75,28 +75,1726 @@
Purpose and Intended Audience
</h4>
<div class="section-content">
-<p>This page includes a concatenation of the reports made by the VP of Legal Affairs to the ASF Board of Directors, and
-may be of interest to committers wishing to follow the progress and history of legal policy issues.
-</p>
+<p>
+ This page includes a concatenation of the reports and resolution
+ proposals made by the VP of Legal Affairs to the ASF Board of
+ Directors, and may be of interest to committers wishing to follow
+ the progress and history of legal policy issues.
+ </p>
</div>
<h4 id="overview">
Overview
</h4>
<div class="section-content">
-<p>The following reports are included in this page:
+<p>
+ The following reports are included in this page. The complete
+ <a href="http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html">board meeting minutes</a> are also available.
+ </p>
<ul>
-<li><a href="#2006-06-27">June 27, 2006</a></li>
-</ul>
-</p>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2009-03-18">March 18, 2009</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2009-02-18">February 18, 2009</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2009-01-21">January 21, 2009</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-12-17">December 17, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-11-19">November 19, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-10-15">October 15, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-09-17">September 17, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-08-20">August 20, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-07-16">July 16, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-06-25">June 25, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-05-21">May 21, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-04-16">April 16, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-03-19">March 19, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-02-20">February 20, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2008-01-16">January 16, 2008</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-11-14">November 14, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-10-17">October 17, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-09-19">September 19, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-08-29">August 29, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-07-09">July 09, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership (approved)
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs (approved)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-07-20">June 20, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-04-25">April 25, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-03-28">March 28, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Establish the Legal Affairs Committee (approved)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-02-21">February 21, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2007-01-17">January 17, 2007</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-12-20">December 20, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-11-15">November 15, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-10-25">October 25, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-09-20">September 20, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-08-16">August 16, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-07-19">July 19, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-06-27">June 27, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-05-24">May 24, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Establish guidelines for handling copyright notices and
+ license headers (approved)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-04-26">April 26, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-03-15">March 15, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2006-01-18">January 18, 2006</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-12-21">December 21, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-11-16">November 11, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-10-26">October 26, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-09-21">September 21, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-08-17">August 17, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables
+ (approved)
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-07-28">July 28, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries (tabled)
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables
+ (tabled)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ <li>
+ <a href="#2005-06-22">June 22, 2005</a>
+ <ul>
+ <li>
+ Appoint a Vice President of Legal Affairs (appointed)
+ </li>
+ </ul>
+ </li>
+ </ul>
</div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-03-18">
+ March 18, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Active month, nothing requiring board attention beyond a passing mention of
+staffing. Summary:
+
+internal:
+ LGPL optional library for testing CouchDB (OK)
+ DOM4J (BSD style license, accepted)
+ JSR 173 license (replaced with an ALv2 equiv)
+ Protocol Buffer License (verified as BSD)
+ Unicode data license (ICU: OK)
+ MSV license (category X: due to FOU)
+ License Headers question (dealing with BSD)
+ Question as to when CCLAs are required (QPid)
+ OASIS license of XSDs (not separately licensed?)
+ OLIO fragment cache license (MIT)
+ ICLA required for student under contract? (wouldn't hurt)
+ Use of Prolog (the language) (OK)
+ Abstract question on documentation (need specifics)
+
+outside:
+ Permission to reuse our CLA form itself (granted!)
+ Question as to whether the ECCN "conveys" to commercial users (answer:
+ exemption may not apply - consult a lawyer)
+ General question as to whether ASF code can be sublicensed commercially
+ (can and does)
+ Hypothetical Discussion between Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen (over my head)
+
+Referred elsewhere:
+ Two separate potential violation of an ASF Trademark (to PRC)
+ Advice for book authors (to PRC)
+ IP-clearance question (to incubator)
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-02-18">
+ February 18, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+ Sam confirmed that an open list was not a problem at this time,
+ and noted that he is pleased with the sharing of the load; while
+ Henri and Larry take on bigger shares than most (thanks!), nobody
+ dominates and plenty of people contribute..
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+While traffic has picked up from last month, absolutely none of it should be
+of any concern to the board. Brief summary:
+
+ * General questions on public domain and fair use
+ * A question about a previously approved license (zlib/libpng)
+ * Two questions on IP clearance, one quick and one more involved, both
+ forwarded to the incubator
+ * A JSR spec contained obsolete licensing terms (Geir quickly dove in)
+ * An inquiry on trademark considerations, including the project logo and the
+ ASF feather from committers on an ASF project working on a book.
+ * An internal discussion on open letters.
+
+The list also attracts questions from users. While it is not something that
+we are set up to do (or, in fact, a service we intend to provide), it has not
+proven to be a problem in practice. Discussions of this nature from the past
+month:
+
+ * Request for advice on a project desiring to use the Apache License and
+ depend on code licensed under the GPL.
+ * A webapp developer asked a question about the MySQL license
+ * A developer of an application on sourceforge asked about how to structure
+ his LICENSE file given that his project is based on an ASF project
+ * A general question about defensive publication as a way to protect against
+ patent trolls.
+ * A general question on internal use of Apache projects
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2009-01-21">
+ January 21, 2009
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Very quiet month, nothing requiring board attention. Highlights:
+
+Naming discussion on JSecurity. Probably would not have given approval to
+that name in the first place, but given that the name has been in use for
+four years without an issue being raised, there isn't consensus on requiring
+a change. That being said the naming discussion was an inevitable bikeshed.
+
+Discussion of whether a given W3C license was category 'B' or 'X'. Given that
+the code in question was dual licensed with BSD, the question was moot.
+
+A discussion about a different W3C license and the policy of not allowing
+non-OSS code in SVN wandered off into nowhere as hypothetical discussions are
+want to do. There was a similar discussion about PDF CJK fonts, and it
+appears that the direction there will be to dynamically download the data vs
+polluting SVN.
+
+A question about dealing with the US Government was handled by Larry off-list.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-12-17">
+ December 17, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+ People are encouraged to follow up on the first issue on
+ legal-discuss.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Most significant thread has the unfortunate subject line of
+"use of proprietary binaries". I say unfortunate, as it is unduly
+prejudicial. The essence of the pragmatism behind "category B" is to
+identify artifacts whose licenses, while different than our own, don't
+affect the ability of us developing our code under our license. As long
+as the dependency is clearly marked and we are not distributing these
+artifacts, we should be good. Related questions such as whether such
+artifacts can be checked into SVN, etc. should be examined in terms of
+infrastructure burden and potential to increase confusion, and not excluded
+as a blanket matter of policy.
+
+The context for the above is optional external APIs and compliance test
+suites. While we would all love for these to be open, that's not a
+requirement. The line in the sand is whether or not usage of such affects
+our ability to develop our code under our license.
+
+By contrast, redistribution of PDF CJK fonts, for which the license clearly
+states that the "contents of this file are not altered" was greeted warmly,
+albeit with a separate discussion about patents.
+
+Other threads:
+
+Does working on Sun RI automatically "contaminate" developer, and preclude
+them from working on ASF project? Answer: not in general, though specific
+PMCs may have specific rules in place depending on the nature of the project.
+
+Lenya website redesign - ensuring that the contributions are under the
+appropriate license.
+
+Obtaining licenses for testing purposes - original question dealt with
+WebSphere, but wondered off to TCKs.
+
+Branding question ("AskApache") referred to PRC.
+
+Continued discussion about Google Analytics. No consensus that there is
+a clear issue yet.
+
+A naming question for JSecurity lead to the inevitable bikeshedding...
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-11-19">
+ November 19, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+It would be helpful to obtain a Notice of Allowance from Robyn in order to
+pursue registering the SpamAssassin Trademark.
+
+Sebastian Bazley updated the mailbox drop information on CCLAs to reflect our
+Wells Fargo lockbox.
+
+Discussed documenting privacy policies w.r.t. Google analytics and
+interpreting "internal use" as our project mailing lists. Parallel discussion
+occurred on site-dev.
+
+Advised Facelets to preserve NOTICEs and not to modify copyright claims
+in files that they copy.
+
+Jira item created for documenting the process for choosing names for ASF
+projects. Looks promising.
+
+Once again, a discussion of making section 5 of the Apache License, Version
+2.0 more explicit via mailing list messages surfaced. Thankfully, it died
+quickly. My feeling is that what we have works for us for now, and shouldn't
+be changed unless there is a specific issue.
+
+A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data. There was a discussion
+concerning us hosting a copy of this, but this made some people uncomfortable
+w.r.t. potential copyright violations.
+
+Discussed w3c's copyright-documents-19990405.html. Overall doesn't look
+open source friendly, but we may be open to further discussion of checkin
+of unmodified sources with appropriate documentation.
+
+Reviewed Oracle's proposed revised JSR301 draft license
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-10-15">
+ October 15, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+4 JIRA requests opened, 3 closed; all related to how to deal with "one off"
+licenses.
+
+Continuing discussions on Google Analytics and legal options related to the
+JCK impasse.
+
+Otherwise, a pretty quiet month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-09-17">
+ September 17, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Things continue to run smoothly. I'm pleased with the number of active
+participants.
+
+An abstract question was asked about an ability to commit to a project given
+exposure to prior ideas from a previous employer. In general, such a
+situation causes us no major concerns, though the situation may vary based on
+the specific projects and specific employers in question.
+
+PDFBox was originally BSD licensed and obtained software grants from all of
+the primary authors. A question was asked regarding small contributions from
+people who they are no longer able contact. Given the size of the
+contributions in question, the original license, and the fact that reasonable
+efforts were made to locate such people, it was determined that this was not a
+concern.
+
+A FAQ was added that older versions of Apache software licensed under Apache
+Software License 1.0 are still licensed as such.
+
+Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution version 3.0 license has been
+approved, provided the materials in question are unmodified. Previously, only
+the 2.5 version had been approved.
+
+A JIRA was opened on documenting release voting procedures. No owner.
+
+Larry helped resolve an issue where a company wished to rewrite our CCLA.
+Our policy is that we don't accept modified ICLAs or CCLAs.
+
+SyntaxHighlighter (LGPL) was approved for use on people.apache.org pages.
+
+Nobody seems to know the licensing status of BEA's StAX implementation, so
+most projects are simply routing around it.
+
+Larry has volunteered to register SpamAssassin trademarks. Given that the PRC
+and the SA PMCs are OK with this, if the board approves the expenditure, I'll
+tell him to proceed.
+
+David Crossley has produced a first draft of a project naming document. He's
+been on the list for over a year, and starting in July of this year has picked
+up his participation.
+
+Routine copyright/notice questions from Felix, CouchDB, JAMES and the Incubator.
+
+RSA's implementation of MD4/MD5 says one thing in their licensing headers and
+a quite different thing on their IETF IPR statement. I think we are covered,
+but we still need to settle how to document this properly.
+
+Bluesky inquired about moving away from some (unspecified) C++ Standard
+library implementation to STLPORT, presumably for licensing reasons.
+Everything I have heard to date indicates that we would be comfortable with
+either implementation.
+
+Google Analytics continues to be explored. Justin expressed an opinion that,
+while a bit stronger than I recall the board expressing, is one that I'm quite
+pleased and comfortable with: namely that we start from a presumption of data
+of this type being open to all, and work backwards from there -- making closed
+only what we must.
+
+A discussion has just started on the legal implications of contests involving
+prizes. If the prizes themselves are donated, and are substantial, we may
+have to consider such as targeted donations.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-08-20">
+ August 20, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 3. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 3
+
+ Jim asked if the board should request a status update
+ regarding the 3rd party license policy. Sam indicated that
+ this was not necessary based on the areas of consensus already
+ are published on the web site, and the items being worked
+ appear in JIRA. No action was taken.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 3: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+While comments were made on a half-dozen or so JIRA issues, none were either
+created or closed this month. I believe that this process is working
+smoothly, and does not warrant board attention.
+
+Notable discussions that occurred during this month:
+
+As reported elsewhere, Microsoft clarified their position on their Open
+Specification Promise. As near as I can tell, everybody feels that this
+completely resolves the issues surrounding the upcoming OOXML support by POI.
+
+The division of labor between the PRC, the incubator, and the Legal Affairs
+Committee continues to confuse people. My understanding is that the PRC is
+responsible for enforcing our claim to names, the incubator is responsible for
+IP clearance (including names), and the Legal Affairs Committee helps respond
+to claims made against the ASF.
+
+A GPL license question surfaced -- this started out with Xapian which is
+licensed under GPL v2 and confusion over what the FSF claims of
+"compatibility" with the Apache License means. Eventually this discussion
+wandered off into the territory of hypotheticals. GPL v2 remains on the ASF's
+restricted list (a.k.a. Category "X").
+
+By contrast, syntax highlighter (licensed under the LGPL) was approved for the
+limited purposes of non-essential enhancement of online documentation.
+
+There was a brief discussion on "blanket" grants and "commit by proxy". This
+was resolved by citing the relevant sections of the ICLA which has explicit
+provisions for the enablement of submitting code on behalf of a third party.
+
+There was a brief discussion as to whether an ICLA sufficient when a person
+may have been exposed to ideas and alternate implementations from a previous
+employer. Our position is yes. Individual PMCs are welcome to set a higher
+bar for themselves.
+
+A permathread re-erupted: when are Apache License Headers needed? The general
+guidance is that they should be added whenever practical, but only where
+practical.
+
+There is an ongoing discussion about notice requirements when code is reused
+from other projects.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-07-16">
+ July 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+ A brief discussion was had concerning ASF committers and members
+ participating as Expert Witnesses. This is a decision that only
+ the individual in question can make for themselves, but if there
+ is any concern that there might involve an ASF vulnerability,
+ then the individual is requested to include the ASF's legal VP
+ and counsel in the discussion.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Resolved issues:
+
+* Documentation about the Legal Affairs Committee has been added to
+ the web site (primary source: board resolutions)
+
+* Cobertura reports can be included in Apache distributions
+
+* Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License Agreement v1.2 does not
+ raise any concerns.
+
+Significant Discussions:
+
+* Permathread about policy issue about shipping LGPL jars reoccurred.
+ again this month.
+
+* We are Revisiting whether or not there should be a JIRA checkbox concerning
+ whether or not there should be a "Grant license to the ASF" checkbox
+ and what the default should be.
+
+Other:
+
+* Received another inquiry from the owners of the Abator trademark.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-06-25">
+ June 25, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ 2. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Another month with little controversy.
+
+At this point /legal/resolved.html contains the bulk of the content
+from the draft 3party text upon which there is wide consensus. This includes
+the discussion of category 'A', 'B', and 'X' licenses. Henri has a real
+talent for proposing text upon which people can find common ground.
+
+The wiki that was previously set up at my request is not seeing much use.
+Relevant documents that were previously there (as well as on
+people.apache.org home directories) have been migrated to the website
+proper.
+
+A JIRA area has been established for tracking legal issues, and this has
+resulted in a lot of activity and issues moving to closure.
+
+Two major areas of future focus:
+
+Nearer term is a sincere desire in a number of areas to be more proactive
+about obtaining suitable licenses for potential patents. This has caused
+problems as patent licensing issues are not as clear cut as copyright or
+trademark issues. I'm comfortable having the Legal Affairs Committee making
+the call that, for example, WSRP4J and POI pose acceptable risks for the
+foundation, and downstream help PMCs mitigate those risks should these
+assessments prove to be unfounded.
+
+Longer term, clarifying and documenting the various notice requirements
+(NOTICE, LICENSE, README) needs attention.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-05-21">
+ May 21, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+A fairly quiet month.
+
+The iBATOR trademark infringement issue seems to have been resolved
+satisfactorily.
+
+Glassfish has now corrected the license issue with prior versions of
+their product (as of the last board report, they had only addressed
+the latest version).
+
+Andy Oliver is continuing to work quietly with myself and ASF council
+to see if we can identify and resolve his concerns with the Microsoft
+funding of Sourcesense to implement OOXML.
+
+WSRP4J appears to be in a roughly analogous place. There are no known
+actively enforced patents by either IBM or WebCollege that apply to
+this code, but a desire to preemptively and proactively get a
+license agreement.
+
+As indicated in the incubator report, nobody on the Legal Affairs
+Committee has expressed any concern with the changes proposed by Roy
+for the procedures for IP Clearance.
+
+Questions on compatibility with various licenses continue to pop up
+from time to time.
+
+No questions on third party licensing issues arose during the past
+month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-04-16">
+ April 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ B. Apache Legal Affairs Committee [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 2
+
+ 7. Special Orders
+
+ A. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+ Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+ periodic update of its membership; and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+ whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+ added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
+
+ Craig Russell <craig.russell@sun.com>
+
+ Special order 7A, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
+ was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 2: Status report for the Apache Legal Affairs Committee
+
+Sun has restored Apache License headers to the Jasper code with
+Glassfish V3. Craig Russell was instrumental in making this happen.
+I feel this issue is now closed.
+
+In related news, the Legal Affairs Commitee voted to add Craig to the
+committee, and it appears as resolution 7A on today's agenda. From time
+to time, I see a number of smaller items that come up on the legal
+mailing lists go unaddressed. I intend to continue to pursue expanding
+the Legal Affairs Committee membership.
+
+We received more information on the trademark concern, and this has
+resulted in Apache iBATIS beginning the process of renaming Apache
+iBATIS Abator to Apache iBATIS iBATOR.
+
+The Legal Affairs committee participated in a number of JCP and Harmony
+related discussions. This is already adequately covered by the report
+from the VP of JCP.
+
+The third party licensing policy continues to remain a draft and despite
+not being made into a policy, is still useful as a set of guidelines and
+hasn't prevented us from making meaningful progress on actual requests
+from podlings and PMCs, such as the request as to how Buildr is to treat
+dependencies covered under the Ruby license.
+
+There has been discussion regarding WSRP with respect to patents.
+While it isn't clear that there is a patent that reads on WSRP, but a
+member of the portals PMC sent a request inquiring as to how certain
+patents would be licensed by IBM and Web Collage. Upon review, the
+consensus seems to be that the agreement presented to us by Web Collage
+is not sufficient for our needs.
+
+POI has a situation where a committer has stated his intent to
+revert commits which were made several months ago based on a feeling
+that there may be patents which read on the code in question.
+
+Portions of the legal site are in flux, and meta discussion as to when
+and who can update the site occur from time to time. This is normal
+and healthy.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-03-19">
+ March 19, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+The third party draft has been a significant distraction. This document
+serves a quite useful purpose -- as a guide. Shortly after this month's
+board meeting, I plan to publish a short document describing how it
+is useful as a guide and identifying a few places where hard distinctions
+it attempts to make are overreaching and will not (yet) be enforced.
+
+Meanwhile, focus will return to concrete, tangible, and near-term
+decisions. The first two of which which will be resolved this week
+deal with code licensed for use "in the creation of products supporting
+the Unicode Standard" and an optional LGPL "deployer" distributed in
+source form.
+
+Other activities:
+ * WSRP4J is looking into potential patent claims
+ * Ongoing crypto notice work
+ * Discussion on maintenance of the year on copyright notices
+ * Question as to whether we would allow projects to dual license (answer: no)
+ * Discussion of various open specification pledges, particularly Microsoft's
+ * OSGI bundle requirements will require ServiceMix to create, maintain, and
+ distribute a small amount of CDDL licensed descriptions.
+ * Continuing confusion over the split between the NOTICE and LICENSE files,
+ this needs to be dealt with by the Legal Affairs Committee
+ * Fielded a question from a non-profit that wanted to base their license
+ off of ours.
+ * A growing list of open legal questions, mostly related to third party
+ licensing.
+ * Glassfish still hasn't restored the Apache License headers to Jasper
+ files, despite some encouraging words that they were going to. Yet
+ another letter was sent to Simon Phipps and the legal contact at Sun
+ he provided me with.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-02-20">
+ February 20, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+7. Special Orders
+
+ E. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+ Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+ periodic update of its membership; and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+ whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+ added as a Legal Affairs Committee member:
+
+ Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org>
+
+ Special order 7D, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership,
+ was approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+Last month, I mentioned a potential trademark infringment issue that was
+brought to our attention. I contacted the individual requesting more
+information, and have not heard back. Until I hear more, I have no
+plans of pursing this further.
+
+Sun continues to ignore our request that the licence headers be restored
+on the portions of Glassfish. I have sent a third request (the first
+was in September) that Sun follow the FSF's recommendations on this matter.
+If Sun continues to drag their feed on this matter, it is time to explore
+other options to get Sun to comply.
+
+While this work has been ongoing for some time, this month there has
+been a marked uptick in the export classification activities and general
+awareness of these ECCN related issues.
+
+Most of the efforts of this month were on trying to refine the ASF's
+Third Party Licensing policy, primarily by attempting to create an
+informal poll. I seeded this with three hypothetical positions, and
+mostly people were divided into two camps. One camp didn't see much
+of a dividing line between the first two positions, but clearly saw
+position three as distinct and reacted negatively towards it. The
+other saw little difference between positions two and three, but reacted
+equally negatively to position 1 as the first camp did to position 3.
+
+A bare minimum that I believe that we can achieve ready consensus on is
+a policy that all sofware developed at the ASF from here on is to be licensed
+under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and that we will take no actions
+that limit our ability to distribute our software under this license.
+Roy has indicated that this may not have been the policy in the distant
+past, but as near as I can tell, it has been the way that we have been
+operating for quite some time now, hence the conclusion that this should
+be able to readily gain consensus.
+
+One world view is that that bare minimum is not enough. One can argue
+that it makes little sense if our software is licensed under a pragmatic
+license if that sofware is entangled with dependencies that effectively
+eliminate all the pragmatic aspects of our license.
+
+The other world view is that our software is, well, soft; i.e., maleable.
+Our licensees are welcome to modify, combine, and optionally contribute
+back to our code bases. Furthermore, no matter how hard we try, our
+licensees are operate under a variety of different constraints or have a
+differing interpretations of license compatibility.
+
+Choosing between these two world views is difficult; but given that the
+former can only be executed if there are ample exceptions for "system" or
+"soft" dependencies -- concepts that are both undefinable and all too open
+to gaming -- clearly the latter is easiest to understand and administer.
+Or there is a belief that a "spec" from an industry consortia and with
+no independent implementations somehow makes copyright and patent issues
+less relevant. In any case, add to all this the evident divide, and the
+first world view becomes not only harder to understand and administer,
+it becomes absolutely unworkable. Simply put, an excemption for "system"
+dependencies that is based on a "I'll know it when I see it" policy doesn't
+work if a substantial portion of the people who may be drawn upon to express
+an opinion on the subject simply don't believe that any such distinction is
+either necessary or even makes sense as a policy.
+
+Therefore it appears that the only workable policy is one where we continue
+to require PMCs to compile a comprehensive set of LICENSEs to accompany each
+of our releases so that our licensees can make an informed decision. That,
+and perhaps to we can increase our efforts to educate PMCs as to the effects
+such dependencies have on community size.
+
+While this approach is workable, it is one that may be difficult to reverse.
+Hence, a slow and cautious approach is warranted. Should there be any
+as of yet unexpressed feedback, now would be a good time to provide it.
+
+I have reviewed the minutes for the meetings of 2005/06/22 and 2007/03/28
+establishing the VP of Legal Affairs and the Legal Affairs Committee
+respectively, and believe that no board resolution and/or explicit approval
+is required for the Legal Affairs Committee to proceed on this matter.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2008-01-16">
+ January 16, 2008
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Request was made that legal/status be updated.
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+The requested FAQ additions have been completed and posted. These
+additions did attract quite a few comments of support, and everybody had
+more than ample time to comment. I've seen no negative fallout as of yet
+of these additions. I mention this because these additions were initially
+controversial, but my impression is that over time some of the participants
+simply got less vocal rather than converted.
+
+Jason Schultz has left his staff attorney position at the EFF. Fred von
+Lohmann of the EFF has agreed to support us in his place.
+
+We have been informed of a potential tradmark infringment issue. I shoud
+have more details by the next meeting.
+
+There is a backlog of items that need to be addressed, preferably in
+parallel rather than serially. Rather than waste report time on what
+I perceive to be the biggest item, namely competing the Third Party
+Licensing policy, time permitting, I've added a discussion item in the
+hopes that we can come to a quick consensus on the approach. If quick
+consensus isn't achievable here, then the hope is that this will serve
+as a heads up so that the interested parties can participate in the
+discussion on legal-discuss.
+
+Other items in the backlog:
+ Third Party Licensing:
+ Minor update to to add OSOA as category A
+ Additional updates to cover notices of optional dependencies (log4cxx, apr)
+ Need a policy on whether depencencies on Ruby Gems are permissable (Buildr)
+ WSRP4J licensing issues (Portals)
+ Fork FAQ
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-11-14">
+ November 14, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ No written report submitted.
+
+ Brief discussion on the possibility of doing a BOF at ApacheCon.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-10-17">
+ October 17, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+After an extended quiet period, I thought I would collect up a
+few updates to the website, but that re-awoke the discussion.
+What's cool is that this time around, there actually are more
+people than Doug actually proposing actual wording. I'm
+convinced that we are continuing to make forward progress.
+
+Backlog of items include following up with Sun on following the
+licensing terms for Jasper, and a "fork FAQ".
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-09-19">
+ September 19, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ Brief discussion concerning the possible need to change the bylaws.
+ We decided not to pursue such a change.
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+Relatively quiet (and short) month.
+
+I believe that we are making progress on the Y! proposed additions to the
+FAQ, and should be able to close shortly. Short summary of the key issue:
+while the ASF as a whole does not confer any official status to
+"subprojects", this proposed FAQ would officially recognize that a PMC
+may, in fact, produce a number of independent "products".
+
+Simon Phipps forwarded to me a writeup by the FSF on how to retain
+appropriate copyright headers on works derived from non-GPL codebases
+and incorporated into GPL codebases. I posted this link on
+legal-internal, and it didn't provoke any objections, so I asked
+Simon to follow these instructions on the Jasper/Glassfish code. I
+will follow up to ensure that this is done.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-08-29">
+ August 29, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Sam Ruby]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+* Continuing to work on Yahoo! patent scope FAQ.
+* Updated web page concerning Apache License and GPL compatibility
+* Updated 3rd party policy, resolving Geronimo and MyFaces issue
+* Participated in two call with ASF council regarding JCK/FOU issue
+* Continuing to work with Sun over ASF license code issues in Glassfish
+
+My goal continues to be to delegate more of this. If necessary,
+I will recruit more people onto the legal committee in order to
+make this happen.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-07-18">
+ July 18, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt / Henning]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+ 7. Special Orders
+
+ E. Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software
+ Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the
+ periodic update of its membership; and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee
+ whose membership must be approved by Board resolution.
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be
+ added as a Legal Affairs Committee members:
+ Sam Ruby <rubys@apache.org>
+
+ Special order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was
+ approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+
+ F. Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs
+
+ WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed
+ Cliff Schmidt to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs,
+ and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation
+ of Cliff Schmidt from the office of Vice President, Legal
+ Affairs, and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee has recommended Sam Ruby as
+ the successor to the post;
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Cliff Schmidt is relieved
+ and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office
+ of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and
+
+ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sam Ruby be and hereby is appointed
+ to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, to serve in
+ accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of
+ Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death,
+ resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a
+ successor is appointed.
+
+ Special order 7F, Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs, was
+ approved by Unanimous Vote.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+As mentioned in last month's report, I wish to resign as VP of Legal
+Affairs. The Legal Affairs Committee has discussed possible
+replacements over the last month and have reached consensus on Sam
+Ruby, who is not currently on the committee. Therefore, I have
+prepared two resolutions for the board to vote on: one to add Sam to
+the committee (being a board/executive committee) and one to have him
+replace me as VP.
+
+There are no other issues requring board attention this month.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-06-20">
+ June 20, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt / Greg]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+On May 31st, the FSF released its "last call draft" of the
+GPLv3. In this draft and its associated press releases, the
+FSF prominently states that there is no longer a concern
+about the Apache License being "incompatible" with the GPLv3.
+The compatibility issue is describing whether they see a
+problem with an Apache-Licensed component being included
+within a larger GPLv3-licensed work. This is what they no
+longer see a problem with. Of course, there would still be
+much concern and debate about the licensing restrictions of a
+larger Apache-Licensed work that included a GPLv3-licensed
+component.
+
+The only other issue to report is that the legal affairs
+committee has been up and running for well over a month. In
+fact, I coordinated approval of the FSF's proposed GPLv3
+wording with the committee (although sadly didn't plan far
+enough advance to coordinate this report). I will soon be
+asking the committee for nominations and an election of a
+new VP of Legal Affairs, with a proposed resolution before
+the Board by next month's meeting.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-04-25">
+ April 25, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Other Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ See Attachment 1
+
+ Cliff indicated that, assuming the current "incompatibility"
+ between GPLv3 and AL 2.0 is resolved, he does not foresee any
+ further potential conflicts.
+
+ Approved by General Consent.
+
+-----------------------------------------
+Attachment 1: Report from the VP of Legal Affairs
+
+As I mentioned in my post to the board@ list shortly after last Board
+meeting, the FSF's third discussion draft of GPLv3 included a note
+that GPLv3 would not be compatible with the Apache License due to the
+indemnification provision. Both Larry Rosen and I have been in touch
+with the FSF and SFLC and expect this statement of incompatibility
+will soon be reversed without any change in the Apache License.
+
+The Board approved my resolution to establish a Legal Affairs
+Committee at last month's meeting. However, I have been lame in
+getting things started due to a shortage of available time in the last
+few weeks. I'll start getting the ball rolling this week.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-03-28">
+ March 28, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ I have proposed a new Legal Affairs Committee to
+ distribute the current legal affairs workload to a
+ coordinated group ASF members, to assign responsibility
+ for legal policy deliberation and decision making to the
+ same group under the supervision of the board, and to
+ provide a structured means of participation and
+ familiarization for those interested in taking over the
+ Legal VP job one day. The resolution is on the agenda.
+ It is currently written as an Executive committee, but
+ we can discuss if that is best.
+
+ I've worked with Geir on issues related to the JCK
+ licensing problems, but I will let him report on that.
+
+ 8. Special Orders
+
+ C. Establish the Legal Affairs Committee
+
+ WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
+ interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
+ Foundation's purpose to create an Executive Committee charged
+ with establishing and managing legal policies based on the
+ advice of legal counsel and the interests of the Foundation;
+ and
+
+ WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes the existing office of
+ Vice President of Legal Affairs will remain a valuable role
+ within the Foundation and would benefit from the creation of such
+ a committee.
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an ASF Executive Committee,
+ to be known as the "Legal Affairs Committee", be and hereby is
+ established pursuant to the Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it
+ further
+
+ RESOLVED, that the Legal Affairs Committee be and hereby is
+ responsible for establishing and managing legal policies based
+ on the advice of legal counsel and the interests of the
+ Foundation; and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that the responsibilities of the Vice President of
+ Legal Affairs shall henceforth include management of the Legal
+ Affairs Committee as its chair; and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
+ hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
+ Legal Affairs Committee:
+
+ Cliff Schmidt
+ Davanum Srinivas
+ Garrett Rooney
+ Geir Magnusson
+ Jim Jagielski
+ Justin Erenkrantz
+ Noel Bergman
+ Robert Burrell Donkin
+ Roy Fielding
+ William Rowe
+
+ Special Order 6C, Establish the Legal Affairs Committee,
+ was approved by Unanimous Vote.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-02-21">
+ February 21, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 5. Additional Officer Reports
+
+ A. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ The CLA FAQ proposed at last month's meeting was reviewed
+ by our counsel. Small changes were made and an additional
+ Q&A was added to clarify the future patent claims issue.
+ The FAQs have been posted to legal-discuss where there is
+ some discussion to make a very minor clarification. In short,
+ I believe this issue is pretty much resolved.
+
+ A pretty bad trademark violation was reported, which I forwarded
+ to the PRC and assisted them in an initial draft (with a review
+ through counsel).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2007-01-17">
+ January 17, 2007
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ The only issue to report this month is the patent license FAQ.
+ Following the plan I suggested in October, I've taken the FAQ
+ proposed by Doug and agreed to by Roy (which addresses the
+ concern for consistency with Roy's public statements on the topic
+ while he served as ASF Chairman) and asked our counsel to review
+ and advise. Barring any legal concerns from counsel, I recommend
+ posting this FAQ. Incidentally, the question part of the FAQ is
+ nearly identical to the one proposed in our September meeting;
+ however, the answer no longer has the problem raised by some
+ directors (that it was attempting to answer more than the
+ question).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-12-20">
+ December 20, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ CLA UPDATE: I sent an update to legal-discuss last week to
+ let everyone know that the plan is to publish a document
+ that describes the original intention behind some of the
+ ambiguities in the CLA and then to discuss the idea of
+ a new version. Roy has agreed to write the "original
+ intention" doc based on what statements he had made about
+ the CLA's interpretation while he was ASF chair.
+
+ GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: The SFLC contacted me about the latest
+ proposed changes to the patent licensing in the next
+ draft of GPLv3. I am reviewing now to ensure these
+ changes would still allow Apache-Licensed works to be
+ included in GPLv3-licensed works.
+
+ STANDARDS LICENSING: I reviewed the BPEL specification patent
+ licenses for Apache ODE. The licenses would not be
+ acceptable by the ASF; however, there do not currently
+ appear to be any patents to license. So, I see no problem
+ with ODE implementing the BPEL spec. Another spec reviewed
+ was the Yahoo-submitted IETF RFC on DomainKeys. Noel
+ submitted this to legal-internal by Noel for review during
+ ApacheCon US. I reviewed and commented on it there; while
+ not ideal, it appears reasonable and should not hold back
+ our development. My analyses for both BPEL and DomainKeys
+ was approved by our legal counsel on legal-internal.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-11-15">
+ November 15, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ Cliff reported that work is continuing on the "crypto export"
+ clarifications for use within the ASF. Also being worked on
+ is the standards licensing. Cliff noted that SenderID is
+ covered under the Open Specification promise, and therefore
+ removes any restrictions on use.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-10-25">
+ October 25, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ Cliff reported that during ApacheCon, the CCLA issue was further
+ discussed with many people, especially Roy and Doug Cutting. Both
+ Roy and Doug were happy with the approach taken and Roy committed
+ to "writing up" what his intents were with the CCLA, so that
+ misinterpretation of the letter and spirit of the CCLA no longer
+ exists.
+
+ Cliff indicated his desire to create a sort of Legal Committee,
+ similar to the PRC or Security Team, to allow for a wider
+ range of volunteers to help with the various legal issues and
+ questions still being worked on. His hope is also that this
+ will provide an opportunity for him to resign from the VP of
+ Legal Affairs position after a period of time.
+
+ Cliff reported that a number of Universities and Colleges have
+ contacted him regarding their own efforts in creating suitable
+ licenses for their open source educational software. Cliff
+ suggested that the ASF possible provide feedback and insights
+ regarding our experiences with the AL as well as the iCLA and
+ CCLAs.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-09-20">
+ September 20, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: This work has been complete for over a
+ month and projects are now starting to use the docs/process.
+ At this stage it still requires me to work closely with the
+ project to ensure they understand the docs, but the system
+ is working. This will scale better as the docs are improved
+ through experience.
+
+ STANDARDS LICENSING: The standards patent covenant that I have
+ mentioned giving feedback on over the last couple reports
+ was made public about one week ago: the Microsoft "Open
+ Specification Promise". While it is not perfect, I
+ believe it should not block PMCs wishing to implement
+ covered specifications.
+
+ USPTO/OSDL's OSAPA: The Open Source As Prior Art initiative
+ met in Portland, OR, last week for two days. I was able
+ to join the group for the second day to learn a little
+ about what is being planned. Will follow-up with email
+ to board@.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+ hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement
+ approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+ and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+ same email to committers as alerts on src header and
+ crypto docs. (No change since last month)
+
+ OSS PROJECT CODE MOVED TO ASF: When an incubating project's
+ initial code base is submitted to the ASF, our CLA
+ requires that "work that is not Your original creation"
+ must be submitted "separately from any Contribution,
+ identifying the complete details of its source and...
+ conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of
+ a third-party: [named here]". This presents a problem
+ when the code base is an existing OSS project with
+ intermingled IP from various sources. One solution I've
+ seen in the past is for the multiple authors to jointly
+ sign the same grant; however, due to a few problems with
+ this approach, I've worked with one set of initial
+ contributors to create a script that uses svn blame/log
+ and a mapping file (svn id or a rev # --> legal owner) to
+ output an exhaustive set of annotations to satisfy this
+ requirement.
+
+ PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I am late on getting this report
+ done. I'm still having discussions with our lawyers and
+ other members of the open source community on a daily /
+ weekly basis. The goals of the report are to detail the
+ ambiguities in the patent language of the current CCLA
+ and to suggest that the board consider options, such as
+ specific clarifications, revisions, and supplementary
+ processes. These can be discussed at today's meeting if
+ the board wishes; in addition, Doug Cutting would like the
+ board to consider an FAQ to address some aspect of the
+ CCLA's ambiguity.
+
+ Cliff also reported that he will commit to having the
+ 3rd Party issues complete by ApacheCon Austin.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-08-16">
+ August 16, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ LICENSING HEADER: About to move the deadline back to Nov 1st
+ due to my slowness in getting out an email to committers@
+ pointing to new policy. However, many projects are
+ already switching over from pointers on legal-discuss.
+
+ CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: Lots of work with APR and especially
+ James on fine-tuning the format for the email reports and
+ web page. Have updated the docs to reflect this. Pretty
+ much done now -- just need to include this on the
+ committers@ email (see above re: license header).
+
+ THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+ hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement
+ approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+ and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+ same email to committers as alerts on src header and
+ crypto docs. (No change since last month)
+
+ PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've continued to do some
+ research and have some discussions with various companies
+ and other open source organizations on this topic. I
+ still hope to have a report comparing the options by the
+ end of this month.
+
+ STANDARDS LICENSING: A large software company will be soon
+ be releasing a new patent license (actually a promise
+ not to sue), under which several specifications will be
+ covered. Much of our feedback has been incorporated
+ into the latest draft. I expect we will be satisfied
+ with the final result (TBA this month).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-07-19">
+ July 19, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ LEGAL HOME PAGE: Have created new legal home page with links
+ to docs relevant for users and committers. Also posting
+ and linking to these legal reports for interested
+ committers to track progress. Please let me know if
+ there are any concerns about this. Will publicize the
+ legal home page and its links on Friday in email to
+ committers@.
+
+ LICENSING HEADER: The final version is now posted, linked
+ from the new legal web page: apache.org/legal. Email to
+ committers will go out on Friday.
+
+ CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: A nearly final version of this is posted
+ including a lengthy FAQ from various dev-list
+ discussions. Last step is to work with dreid on project-
+ specific RDF files that build final required web page.
+ Hoping to have this also done and in email to committers
+ on Friday.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but
+ hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement
+ approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports)
+ and then call it final, and ideally have it included in
+ same email to committers as alerts on src header and
+ crypto docs.
+
+ PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've tried to keep the board
+ aware enough of this discussion over the last 2-3 months
+ to jump in as any director sees fit; however, recent
+ discussions on board@ lead me to believe that I should
+ request this to become an item of new business, rather
+ than wait for another director to inquire more about it.
+ I suggest a brief conversation on the topic today,
+ followed by a more detailed presentation of the concerns
+ of each side of the issue at some point in the near
+ future.
+
+ SFLC LETTER ON ODF: After clarifying with SFLC that we did
+ not want their letter to represent an "Apache position"
+ on ODF nor did we want our name used in any PR on the
+ subject, I agreed to the text of their letter. Since
+ publishing the letter several weeks ago, they appear to
+ have honored my requests completely.
+
+ STANDARDS LICENSING: I continue to have conversations with
+ vendors on how they can improve the licensing of their
+ essential patent claims for specifications that Apache
+ would consider implementing. I'm actually seeing some
+ progress/willingness to revise from vendors.
+</pre>
</div>
-
+
<h4 id="2006-06-27">
June 27, 2006
</h4>
<div class="section-content">
<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
LICENSING HEADER: I sent a summary of the resolution passed
at last month's meeting to the legal-discuss list and
am compiling a short FAQ based on questions from that
@@ -122,8 +1820,774 @@
specification. If we agree with the draft, they would
like to issue a statement that they are representing the
positions on two of their clients, the ASF and FSF.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-05-24">
+ May 24, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ LICENSING HEADER: I have submitted a resolution for the
+ Board's consideration to set a new policy for source
+ code headers. In brief, the headers will no longer
+ include any copyright notice, only a licensing notice
+ and a mention of the NOTICE file for copyright info.
+ The NOTICE file will include the ASF's copyright notice,
+ in addition to other required notices. Copyright
+ notices in third-party components distributed within ASF
+ products will not be touched.
+
+ CRYPTO EXPORT POLICY: I have posted a crypto policy at
+ http://apache.org/dev/crypto.html. The policy should
+ answer most of our questions in this area, but will be
+ gradually enhanced over time.
+
+ GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: After a close review of the first draft
+ of GPLv3, I brought up potential incompatibility issues
+ with the Apache License to the GPLv3 discussion committee
+ that I serve on. The FSF's counsel hopes these issues
+ can be addressed in the next draft. As I've said before,
+ both the FSF and the SFLC continue to be unwavering in
+ their dedication to ensure GPLv3 is compatible with Apache
+ License v2.
+
+ PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've spent a lot of time with
+ one particular corporate legal staff lately with their
+ questions of whether the CCLA implies that the set of all
+ possible patent claims being licensed can be known at the
+ time of contribution. It's obvious why a corporation
+ would want the answer to be affirmative; however, such an
+ answer would not protect the project's work from patent
+ infringement claims by a contributor regarding how their
+ contribution is combined with other things. It may be
+ worth revising the (C)CLA language to make this more
+ clear.
+
+ ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED AGREEMENTS: Now allowed. See the
+ Secretary's report.
+
+ LICENSING AUDITS: I work closely with the Eclipse Foundation's
+ IP Manager, who continues to inform me of apparent
+ inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the licensing of
+ ASF products. I've been asking PMCs to address these
+ issues as they come up, but what we really need is an
+ internal audit on each product to get these problems
+ fixed. Before we can do that, we need complete
+ documentation on the things an audit should look for and
+ how they should be corrected. I will likely make this a
+ priority for the "Docathon" at ApacheCon EU next month.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: Due to the issues above, I've neglected to
+ make the few remaining changes to the draft licensing
+ policy doc and publish the official version. As I
+ mentioned last month, I intend to tell PMCs that all new
+ products MUST conform to the policy, but that all
+ existing products that do not currently conform need to
+ only take one action over the next six months: report
+ where/how they are not conforming so that the practical
+ impact of the policy can be better understood without
+ yet requiring substantial changes. The philosophy
+ behind this "impact evaluation period" is that the
+ policy was primarily intended to document the mostly
+ unwritten rules today and to choose one rule when
+ multiple exist across the ASF. Now that I've cleared
+ the license header and crypto issues off the high
+ priority list, I hope to focus exclusively (as much as
+ possible) on getting the 1.0 version out.
+
+ 6. Special Orders
+
+ C. Establish guidelines for handling copyright notices and license
+ headers.
+
+ WHEREAS, the copyright of contributions to The Apache
+ Software Foundation remains with the contribution's owner(s),
+ but the copyright of the collective work in each Foundation
+ release is owned by the Foundation,
+
+ WHEREAS, each file within a Foundation release often includes
+ contributions from multiple copyright owners,
+
+ WHEREAS, the Foundation has observed that per-file attribution
+ of authorship does not promote collaborative development,
+
+ WHEREAS, inclusion of works that have not been directly
+ submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation for
+ development does not present the same collaborative
+ development issues and does not allow the owners to consider
+ the Foundation's copyright notice policies;
+
+ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the case of copyright
+ notices in files contributed and licensed to The Apache
+ Software Foundation, the copyright owner (or owner's agent)
+ must either: remove such notices, move them to the NOTICE
+ file associated with each applicable project release, or
+ provide written permission for the Foundation to make such
+ removal or relocation of the notices, and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that each release shall include a NOTICE file for
+ such copyright notices and other notices required to accompany
+ the distribution, and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that the NOTICE file shall begin with the following
+ text, suitably modified to reflect the product name, version,
+ and year(s) of distribution of the current and past releases:
+
+ Apache [PRODUCT_NAME]
+ Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation
+
+ This product includes software developed at
+ The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
+
+ and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that files licensed to The Apache Software
+ Foundation shall be labeled with the following notice:
+
+ Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ distributed with this work for additional information
+ regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+
+ http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+ Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+ software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+ "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+ KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+ specific language governing permissions and limitations
+ under the License.
- </pre>
+ and be it further
+
+ RESOLVED, that for the case of works that have not been
+ directly submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation
+ for development, the associated copyright notices for the work
+ shall not be moved, removed, or modified.
+
+ By Unanimous Vote, Special Order 6C, Establish guidelines for
+ handling copyright notices and license headers, was Approved.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-04-26">
+ April 26, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ Cliff reported that the 3rd Party License report will
+ likely be officially released later on this month (April),
+ at which point he will start on the Copyright/Header
+ issues. Regarding the 3rd Party License report, it is
+ fully expected that, even though discussed and reviewed,
+ there will be further discussions upon release. The board's
+ stand is that we should release it "as is" and retify
+ things if required. All new projects will need to adhere
+ to the policy; existing projects will be given time to
+ bring their codebases up to policy standards.
+
+ The board expressed their appreciation to Cliff for
+ a Job Well Done.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-03-15">
+ March 15, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. VP of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: After nearly two months of review on the
+ board@ list and one month of review by pmcs@, I've
+ finally posted the latest draft of the third-party
+ licensing policy to the legal-discuss list. My goal
+ is to get all new comments or concerns collected by
+ the end of the month, and resolve all issues to get
+ a final, official, v1.0 release in April. I will
+ also be trying to solicit user comments through the
+ feather blog and a brief pointer sent to a few of
+ the project user lists. However, I would also like
+ to explicitly verify that there is a consensus from
+ the Board in support of the guiding principles*
+ behind the policy and the resulting license criteria**.
+ *http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#principles
+ **http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criteria
+
+ LICENSING HEADER, ETC: Now that the third-party policy
+ doc is out there, my next major project is to draft
+ and get our counsel to approve a document that
+ updates our source code licensing header,
+ describes where to place copyright notices, various
+ third-party licenses, explains how to deal with
+ crypto export issues, and more. Although I think it
+ will be useful to our committers to have this all in
+ one document, I won't hold up getting a resolution on
+ the license header/copyright notice issue to wait for
+ the rest of the document.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2006-01-18">
+ January 18, 2006
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff]
+
+ GPLv3: I just finished attending the GPLv3 conference at MIT,
+ during which the first "discussion draft" of the GPLv3
+ was presented. The most relevant news is that the current
+ discussion draft includes a "License Compatibility"
+ section that allows the inclusion of Apache-Licensed (v2.0)
+ independent works within GPLv3-licensed programs. This
+ section may change within the next year, but it remains
+ clear that Eben and RMS will continue to make this sort
+ of compatibility with the Apache License a priority. The
+ other news is that I have accepted an invitation to
+ represent the ASF on one the GPLv3 "discussion committees".
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: I will be sending out a draft policy on third-
+ party IP to the board@ list this Friday, January 20th.
+
+ Cliff further reported that the Copyright Notice Policy
+ was still being worked on, and will be finished some time
+ after the completion of the 3rd Party License Policy
+ Report.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-12-21">
+ December 21, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+ PATENT ISSUES: I had a second meeting with Microsoft about
+ possible improvements to the patent licenses that they
+ have stated would apply to various WS specifications at
+ OASIS. Details can be found in my summary post to
+ legal-internal on 6 Dec 05 (Message-Id:
+ <81007DBD-EBD8-45DC-8A35-0FB8F4F3FC11@apache.org>. I've
+ since asked them about the possibility of issuing a
+ Covenant not to enforce patent claims, similar to what they
+ recently did for Office 2003 Reference Schemas. No
+ response on that one just yet.
+
+ GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: Eben Moglen and RMS have each personally
+ asked that the ASF participate in the GPLv3 input/feedback
+ process, primarily to help ensure compatibility between
+ the GPL and Apache licenses. I plan to attend the first
+ GPLv3 conference at MIT in January for that purpose.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: After talking with 20+ ASF members at ApacheCon
+ about a proposed licensing policy, I am now ready to float
+ something formal by the membership. The short version is
+ that I believe we need to draw the licensing line at the
+ ability for our users to redistribute all parts of an
+ official ASF distribution under their own license, as long
+ as it does not violate the copyright owner's license. I'm
+ working up a list of how this would impact the top 30 OSI-
+ approved licenses and a few others, but I can tell you it
+ would exclude both the LGPL and the Sun Binary Code
+ License, which is currently used in Apache James.
+
+ LAME LIST: In prior reports I said I expected to have a policy
+ written on crypto export and copyright notices. I'm late
+ on both. I am now able to projects with the correct
+ procedure for crypto, but I still need to get it formally
+ documented.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-11-16">
+ November 16, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+ SFLC: Justin and I had a kick-off meeting with Eben and two
+ of his lawyers. Justin and Greg are already working
+ with one of them to handle any issues with our books
+ and 501(c)(3) status. Justin is the point person for
+ this work and will be handling ongoing status in his
+ Treasurer's report.
+
+ BXA/CRYPTO: The Perl folks sent out the required notification
+ for the mod_ssl stuff. I've now taken their feedback and
+ drafted a process document to run through counsel. Jason
+ has referred me to another EFF lawyer with more crypto
+ export experience who has agreed to review it.
+
+ COPYRIGHT NOTICS: Our counsel will be giving one final review
+ on the copyright notice issue starting this Friday
+ (during a monthly teleconference). Should have something
+ ready within one week after that.
+
+ LGPL: I'm still waiting on feedback from Eben on my
+ Java/LGPL position paper that I sent him last month. He
+ wanted to refrain from giving me feedback until
+ discussing the matter with the FSF. I expect to have
+ something any day now, since that meeting should have
+ recently happened. I recommend we hold off any decision
+ to allow distribution of LGPL components within non-
+ incubating product JARs until getting this one last
+ opinion from Eben and then bouncing it off the rest of
+ our counsel. However, I do not think we should have any
+ legal concern about separately distributing the LGPL and
+ ASF component that depends on it; both Jason and Larry
+ have signed off on this question.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: In the process of working on a document to
+ get us to a comprehensive policy on what third-party
+ software we will distribute and how, I have created a
+ little matrix to summarize the issues across the most
+ common licenses of interest to the ASF today. I will
+ send this matrix to legal-discuss list today for
+ discussion. It might also be helpful for discussing
+ how LGPL is similar and different from licenses like
+ the CPL and CDDL.
+
+ ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: All these issues and more are being
+ written to live within a series of ASF legal policy
+ documents that I am hoping to have approved at or soon
+ after ApacheCon.
+
+ HOUSEKEEPING: I've created a new directory /foundation/legal/
+ Board to include all Legal reports and approved
+ resolutions with a README indicating that they are
+ compiled there for convenience and with a pointer to
+ the normative versions.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-10-26">
+ October 26, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+ ADDITIONAL COUNSEL: I have signed an agreement with Eben
+ Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center to have them
+ offer the ASF pro bono legal services. The first job
+ will be to work with Justin on renewing our 501(c)(3)
+ status and some of the thorny issues we need to resolve
+ to get our books in order.
+
+ BXA/CRYPTO: While I was working on a draft crypto policy,
+ I was notified that the Perl PMC (and Tomcat?) may not
+ have sent notification to the Bureau of Industry and
+ Security (BIS, formerly known as BXA). This has
+ required me to try out specific guidance on these two
+ projects, which will hopefully make the formal policy
+ more robust. I'm still working with the Perl and
+ Tomcat PMCs to help solve their immediate issues. Most
+ of the relevant discussion has been cc'd to
+ legal-internal.
+
+ COPYRIGHT NOTICES: Last month I reported that I was getting
+ general agreement from our counsel to move to a policy
+ that requires only a licensing notice, but not a
+ copyright notice at the top of each source file. I
+ regret to say that I have made very little progress on
+ this issue since last month. I'll have this ready for
+ next board meeting.
+
+ LGPL: Last month I reported that this issue needs to be
+ addressed within the context of an overall policy stating
+ what licenses are acceptable for ASF distributions to
+ take dependencies on and distribute (see "Third Party IP"
+ issue below). Ten days ago, I sent Eben Moglen (in his
+ role as general counsel for the FSF) a five-page document
+ (including a developer-focused FAQ) on my interpretation
+ of exactly what the LGPL allows and does not allow related
+ to Java dependencies and distribution requirements. He
+ has not given me feedback on this yet, but has been
+ talking about releasing a similar position paper on behalf
+ of the FSF.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: Last month I reported that most of the
+ licenses we thought we could sublicense under the Apache
+ License (including the CPL) can really only be distributed
+ under their own license. So, we now need to figure out what
+ makes a license okay to include in an Apache distribution.
+ I've made very little progress on this in the last month, but
+ I hope to have a policy written, discussed, and ready for
+ approval by the December board meeting.
+
+ ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: Although I did not make as much progress
+ as I'd hoped on the copyright notice and third-party IP
+ issues over the last month, I did write up and outline for
+ an overall legal policy doc to address these issues and
+ others. The outline (including a brief preview of where
+ the document was probably headed) was sent to legal-discuss.
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-09-21">
+ September 21, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+ COPYRIGHT NOTICES: I have gotten Jason, Larry, Robyn, and
+ even Eben Moglen to all agree that we should be fine
+ with no copyright notice at the top of each source file,
+ and instead just include a licensing notice similar to
+ what Roy recently posted to the Board@ list. The issue
+ that isn't quite solved yet is the mechanics of ensuring
+ any COPYRIGHT file or section of the NOTICE file is in
+ sync with the CLAs and agreements from outside contributors.
+
+ BXA/CRYPTO: I now have an understanding of the open source
+ exception to the crypto export requirements. I've read
+ through the relevant docs at bxa.doc.gov, eff.org, and
+ a legal opinion from McGlashan & Sarrail dated
+ September 13, 2000, which I found in /foundation/Records/BXA.
+ There was a minor (generally favorable) change to the
+ TSU exception (the one that applies to open source) last
+ December. The bottom line is that there appears to be no
+ problem with distributing source or binaries as long as we
+ give appropriate notice to the BXA/BIS. My next step is to
+ get an updated opinion from Jason and publish guidelines to
+ PMCs.
+
+ LGPL: There's the legal requirements side of this issue and
+ the policy side (as with so many things). I believe I have
+ already completed the due dilligence on the legal
+ requirements side; however, during conversations with Eben
+ Moglen I've found that he plans to publish a document that
+ is explicit about the issues or non-issues with Java and
+ the LGPL. I will be sending him my view of these issues
+ this week, which I hope will influence what ends up in his
+ document. On the policy side, we need to stop treating the
+ LGPL differently from other licenses, and instead determine
+ what our policy is for taking dependencies on and
+ distributing third-party IP.
+
+ THIRD-PARTY IP: Any time we bring in third-party IP that is
+ not licensed under the Apache License, we have two choices:
+ a) sublicense the work under the Apache License (if we have
+ the rights to do so), or b) distribute the Apache product
+ under each applicable license and make that clear to our
+ users. We've been trying to say we're only doing a) so far.
+ However, in my view we are obviously not consistently doing
+ this, nor do I think it is practical to do so. So, I'm now
+ thinking the best way to address issues of shipping CPL,
+ MPL, CDDL, LGPL, etc. is to stop trying to sublicense them
+ under the Apache License and instead create and implement
+ a policy that allows us to distribute products that contain
+ IP under some set of license terms (including terms outside
+ the scope of the Apache License).
+</pre>
+</div>
+
+<h4 id="2005-08-17">
+ August 17, 2005
+</h4>
+<div class="section-content">
+<pre>
+ 4. Officer Reports
+
+ E. V.P. of Legal Affairs [Cliff Schmidt]
+
+ I've inserted slightly edited versions of the same MPL/NPL
+ and LGPL resolutions, which were tabled last month.
+
+ Since last month's meeting, I have:
+ - confirmed with a second member of ASF's legal counsel
+ that the proposed LGPL policy does not put our product
+ licensing at risk;
+ - posted and discussed the proposed LGPL policy on the
+ legal-discuss list, where no new concerns were raised
+ about the licensing ramifications; however there was
+ concern raised by both outside lawyers and Apache
[... 262 lines stripped ...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org