You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2013/05/14 00:44:46 UTC
updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
2 questions:
(1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
(2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
-Marshall Schor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
>>>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
>>>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 questions:
>>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
>>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>>
>>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>>
>> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
>> terms of this License."
>>
>> Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
>> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
>> were previously approved)
>
> This license is not viral. The terms of 4.a refer to "the Work" not to derived works. Specifically, in 4.a "...but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License".
I agree that it is not category-X.
> All I think it means is that including the Work in an Apache distribution needs to preserve the license terms of the Work.
>
> So I don't see the issue.
We allow licensees of our code to impose additional restrictions on
distributions of derived works based on our software. We are
intentionally compatible with GPLv3 and proprietary (closed source)
licenses. This license appears to not be compatible with either.
In fact, compare that philosophy with the following excerpts from CC
Attribution 3.0:
* You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the
terms of this License or the ability of a recipient of the Work to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License.
* You may not sublicense the Work.
* You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise
the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.
> Craig
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On May 17, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
>>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>>
>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
>>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>
>>>> 2 questions:
>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>
>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
>>
>> Done.
>
> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>
> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> terms of this License."
>
> Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
> were previously approved)
This license is not viral. The terms of 4.a refer to "the Work" not to derived works. Specifically, in 4.a "...but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License".
All I think it means is that including the Work in an Apache distribution needs to preserve the license terms of the Work.
So I don't see the issue.
Craig
>
>> --kevan
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Sam Ruby wrote on Fri, May 17, 2013 at 15:31:56 -0400:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
> >>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
> >>>
> >>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
> >>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> >>>
> >>> 2 questions:
> >>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
> >>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
> >>
> >> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
> >
> > Done.
>
> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>
> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> terms of this License."
>
> Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
> were previously approved)
That clause means a CC-BY-3.0 -licensed work can't be re-released under
ALv2. Does that suffice to exclude CC-BY-3.0 from Category A?
Daniel
(a bit unfortunate; the summary page makes it sound as though CC-BY is
compatible with the BSD license)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Kevan,
>
> I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
>
> The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache License
> also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of the
> Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
Compare:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare
Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense,
and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object
form.
With:
You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the
terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License. You may not sublicense the Work. ... When You Distribute or
Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective
technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a
recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that
recipient under the terms of the License. ... If You create a
Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent
practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by
Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice
from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from
the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.
I continue to maintain that the license contains substantial
additional restrictions over and above the Apache License -- including
the restriction that we can't impose restrictions ourselves (such as
our patent termination clause).
As such, I believe that "additional action is warranted in order to
minimize the chance that a user of an Apache product will create a
derivative work". Specifically, we should only distribute such
artefacts in unmodified form, and only do so with appropriate
labelling.
Can anybody cite a project for which there is a need to make
derivative works of materials made available under a CC-BY license or
a reason why it would be harmful to make it clear when distributions
include such materials?
> /Larry
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> As a practical matter, if you distribute that Apache work unmodified and put
> your own license on it, I would consider it equivalent to a dual-licensed
> work under both the Apache License and your license.
I'm not certain I follow, or how this relates to the original
discussion. But as a practical matter, the Apache Licence and CC-BY
are very different.
There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have
released under various versions of GPL licenses. And others have have
released under proprietary (non-open source) licenses. Of course,
these actions don't prevent people who desire access to the original
source to get such from the original source -- namely us.
If that's what you mean by dual license (you can get the code from us
under one license or from somebody else under a different license),
that's fine. But as a practical matter what I will note that what I
just described is expressedly NOT allowed by CC-BY.
Given these differences, it makes sense for us to carefully evaluate
cases where modifications may need to be required, and furthermore it
makes sense for us to highlight cases where we include such.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:08:03PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable.
> > We have licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this provision.
>
> Quite so. And my own licenses also were written to be sublicenseable based on my understanding of FOSS requirements in those days. [1]
>
> But the fact remains that many IP licenses nowadays are not sublicenseable. They flow directly from the IP owner to each and every user.
[...]
> [1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the BSD license is NOT sublicenseable. :-)
I was just about to make this point (though I would have said
'arguably not sublicenseable'). If BSD is the quintessential Category
A license, then the mere presence of a no-sublicensing clause
shouldn't be enough to put a license into Category B (?).
Incidentally, the FSF treats CC0 as GPL-compatible even though even
*it* has a no-sublicensing clause. I pointed this out casually to the
FSF to make sure they had taken notice of it.
- RF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 28, 2013, at 9:08 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable.
>> We have licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this provision.
>
> Quite so. And my own licenses also were written to be sublicenseable based on my understanding of FOSS requirements in those days. [1]
>
> But the fact remains that many IP licenses nowadays are not sublicenseable. They flow directly from the IP owner to each and every user. This is intentional, so as to eliminate issues of privity of contract that bedevil IP enforcement. So get used to not getting what you think you need -- but getting everything that you (and our users!) actually need.
Confession: time constraints are preventing me from giving this thread its due...
Besides Sam not getting what you think he needs, is there an actual problem? ; -) Sam's position is (at least to me) consistent with the historical position of legal affairs committee. AFAICT, this position is not causing significant issues to any projects (at least currently).
If a Category B classification is causing actual problems to a project, then the project should raise this issue on legal-discuss and re can reexamine the issue… Any problems with this?
>
> /Larry
>
> [1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the BSD license is NOT sublicenseable. :-) See http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch05.pdf.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable.
> We have licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this provision.
Quite so. And my own licenses also were written to be sublicenseable based on my understanding of FOSS requirements in those days. [1]
But the fact remains that many IP licenses nowadays are not sublicenseable. They flow directly from the IP owner to each and every user. This is intentional, so as to eliminate issues of privity of contract that bedevil IP enforcement. So get used to not getting what you think you need -- but getting everything that you (and our users!) actually need.
/Larry
[1] I wrote about sublicensing starting on page 87 of my book, where I noted that the BSD license is NOT sublicenseable. :-) See http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> “You may not sublicense the Work.”
>
> We and our downstream licensees don't need sublicensing rights.
Our license was intentionally written to be sublicensable. We have
licencees who have chosen to make use of our code based on this
provision.
> You suggest that these provisions of the CC-BY license are “incompatible
> with both GPL and with the ability to sublicense such code in a proprietary
> (closed source) implementation.” As to the sublicensing issue, I addressed
> that above.
I'll again state that our license was intentionally written to be
sublicensable.
> As to the GPL or proprietary code compatibility issue, I fail to
> see why that is either an accurate statement nor our problem to resolve. The
> GPL community and our downstream proprietary licensees can easily and
> reasonably comply with CC-BY, and if they don’t like it, they can remove
> that code from their derivative works. (Just like the GPL community used to
> refuse Apache works because they misunderstood our Apache license but then
> wrote GPLv3 to solve the problem, perhaps they will also accommodate
> themselves to CC-BY someday?)
It remains the case that the CC-By license has restrictions that
aren't present in the Apache License, and have the effect of
preventing licensees from making use of rights that were intentionally
put into our license.
Nobody has advocated that we don't ship artifacts licensed under the
terms of CC-BY, just that we acknowledge that the license contains
restrictions that go beyond what the Apache License requires, and
therefore additional care is made to avoid modification and to
properly draw attention to these differences.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/28/2013 03:46:11 PM:
> Let me repeat below the language from the CC-BY license that you
> quoted as concerning you in your earlier email dated 5/24.
I don't recall whether Sam included this item in his 5/24 note, but the
most important restriction in the CC-BY license is the first sentence of
4.a.
"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this License, ..."
So, Apache does not have the freedom to effectively comply with the
provisions of the inbound license using its own terms, it must convey the
Work (even as part of the Collective Work created by the Apache project)
under the CC-BY license terms, exclusively, and that obligation passes on
to the Apache user. This violates one of the principles of the Apache
licensing model -- that unless proper notice is provided, people can treat
code from Apache consistent with the Apache license, including turning
around and licensing it outbound under commercial terms. Since the CC-BY
license breaks that principle, regardless of whether all of the other terms
are OK, wouldn't it need to be highlighted, in BIG RED LETTERS somewhere so
that users are on notice?
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Hi Sam,
Let me repeat below the language from the CC-BY license that you quoted as concerning you in your earlier email dated 5/24. Since you want me to focus on that particular license rather than state my general complaints about our Category A list, I include below my comments about each specific CC-BY provision so as to allay your concerns about that specific license:
"You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License."
This is the same message that I conveyed to Jeffrey Thompson and to you in my last email here. It is a factual statement under copyright law about the Work. There is nothing unfortunate about that provision in the CC-BY license.
“You may not sublicense the Work.”
We and our downstream licensees don't need sublicensing rights. All CC-BY licenses to the Work flow directly from the original author. This is exactly the same as the patent licenses we get for W3C and IETF specifications, so get used to not having sublicensing be applicable for components in Apache works. That doesn’t mean we have a problem! We and all our downstream users still have all the rights we are used to in Apache works.
“... When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License.”
This is a restatement that you cannot restrict the Work under the CC-BY License from downstream users. For example, if ASF or someone downstream creates a proprietary shell around this CC-BY Work, they can't "impose any effective technological measures" that would restrict access to the CC-BY Work, although the shell itself remains proprietary. This is similar to the freedom guaranteed by the Copyright Act (and the DMCA) that allow licensees to reverse engineer for certain purposes. This provision is in the public interest.
“... If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.”
I read this as protecting the reputation of the Licensor. This is in the public interest. (Apache often writes letters to software distributors requesting that they not claim that we endorse or support their collective or derivative works.)
“If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.”
I read this as a request “to the extent practicable” to protect the reputation of the Licensor. This is in the public interest, just like the previous sentence.
In summary, while this is all different from the language in our own license, it strikes me as entirely reasonable language nevertheless. With appropriate NOTICE, we and our downstream licensees can easily comply.
You suggest that these provisions of the CC-BY license are “incompatible with both GPL and with the ability to sublicense such code in a proprietary (closed source) implementation.” As to the sublicensing issue, I addressed that above. As to the GPL or proprietary code compatibility issue, I fail to see why that is either an accurate statement nor our problem to resolve. The GPL community and our downstream proprietary licensees can easily and reasonably comply with CC-BY, and if they don’t like it, they can remove that code from their derivative works. (Just like the GPL community used to refuse Apache works because they misunderstood our Apache license but then wrote GPLv3 to solve the problem, perhaps they will also accommodate themselves to CC-BY someday?)
/Larry
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Those licenses we do approve in Category A have some interesting conditions
> that I bet we and our downstream users don’t always satisfy.
I'm not aware of any such. If you do find an instance, please bring
it to our attention. In the case where we didn't satisfy the
conditions, that would be a bug that we would need to fix. Note: such
a bug would not be a mere policy violation; barring any other
agreements, it is only by complying with the license that we obtain
the legal right to copy.
>From time to time, we have become aware of licensees of our software
that do not comply with the terms of our license. In each case I
recall, this is quickly cleared up once the issue is brought to their
attention.
> I suggest that the conditions in CC-BY are not substantially more onerous
> than the ones we do accept,
I disagree. I've cited conditions that make CC-BY incompatible with
both GPL and with the ability to sublicense such code in a proprietary
(closed source) implementation.
But I encourage people to look at specifics. I'll start by quoting
from our license, and then repeat the license excerpts that you
extracted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html :
a. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a
copy of this License; and
b. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that You changed the files; and
c. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You
distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from
the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to
any part of the Derivative Works; and
d. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution,
then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy
of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding
those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in
at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation,
if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated
by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally
appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only
and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices
within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to
the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution
notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
> ******** text copied from Category A licenses listed at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html:
>
> (C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
> copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in
> the software.
> (D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you
> may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this
> license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
> software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license
> that complies with this license.
>
> *****
>
> provided, however, that the BeOpen Python License is retained in the
> Software, alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.
>
> *****
>
> · Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> · Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> *****
>
> The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the
> redistributed or derivative work.
>
> *****
>
> 2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and
> conditions. If none exist, a short notice of the following form (hypertext
> is preferred, text is permitted) should be used within the body of any
> redistributed or derivative code: "Copyright © [$date-of-software] World
> Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut
> National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University).
> All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/"
>
> 3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the W3C files, including the
> date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location from
> which the code is derived.)
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
@Larry,
That’s interesting although I think this one may be more relevant to some things that go on around here:
< http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/>.
And thanks for the link to Luis. If my blog reader ever works again, I’m subscribed [;<).
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
I promised to send this link to the list:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/06/05/forking-and-standards-why-the-right-to-fork-can-be-pro-social/
I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is worth thinking seriously about. :-)
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> )
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis@tieguy.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:37 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Thanks for the heads up, Larry. I subscribe to the list, actually, but have not been following this thread.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com> > wrote:
Hi Luis,
I named you in an email I wrote to Apache legal-discuss@ list. Since this isn’t a private Apache list I have no problem copying you on what I wrote.
/Larry
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com <ma...@rosenlaw.com> ]
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Larry Rosen wrote:
> > I mean only that the original work
> > remains available to others under the same terms under which you
> > received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> > from you too).
Jeffrey Thompson responded:
> I agree that someone distributing Apache code under a
> different license doesn't negate the rights still
> available from the original authors.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have released under
> various versions of GPL licenses. And others have have released under
> proprietary (non-open source) licenses. Of course, these actions don't prevent
> people who desire access to the original source to get such from the original
> source -- namely us.
I agree with that much.
As I responded to Jeffrey about CC-BY, I was talking about contributions we incorporate into Apache software and then distribute to our licensees. This was in the context of a suggestion that we remove CC-BY from Category A of our list of allowed licenses at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
To repeat what most of you already know, all copyrighted works that Apache incorporates into our projects remain under their original licenses. We (ASF) do not have the right to change those licenses. We only have the right (collectively) to distribute our derivative and collective works incorporating those original works to our public under an ASF copyright. We only own the copyright in the derivative or collective work and we can control that work with the Apache License – but we don’t own or control the copyright in the components. See 17 USC 103(b). [I assume nobody assigns their copyrights to ASF, which is a different legal construct.]
In that context, I question the very rationale for the Category A and B licenses that we list.
Those licenses we do approve in Category A have some interesting conditions that I bet we and our downstream users don’t always satisfy. Listed at the end of this email are some examples of conditions in one or more of those approved Category A licenses. We do, of course, say this: “Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. Ensure you are doing this when including these works.” (I added the underlining to point out that the attribution portion of CC-BY must have been analyzed previously by someone here at Apache! Why are we doing it again?)
I suggest that the conditions in CC-BY are not substantially more onerous than the ones we do accept, although perhaps we ought to talk with our friends at Creative Commons to get them to simplify their attribution license. I note also that Luis Villa intends to blog his own feedback on CC-BY because he sees some problems with it for use at W3C that we haven’t even talked about here. I’ll forward that link when I receive it from him.
I’m not suggesting that we like CC-BY, only that the rationale by which we determine whether to list it is incomplete and inconsistent.
Worse yet, the conditions in all those approved Category A licenses apply to our downstream Apache licensees as well. We (ASF) can’t change those existing licenses. Anyone who intends to take an Apache work and modify it had better read all the licenses that apply to it. Are our NOTICE files up-to-date with respect to these components in our software?
If we only want licenses in Category A that don’t have conditions that affect us or our licensees, we had better purge that list!
I also suggest that we’re being both under-inclusive and over-inclusive on our Category A list. The GPL is an example of a license that we refuse to include in our Apache software, so we reject it for Category A. The reason for this has nothing to do with its conditions, since we can avoid the consequences of that license simply by not distributing derivative works of GPL software. We reject the GPL because we want to honor the legal interpretation of “derivative works by linking” promulgated by the FSF, not because we agree with that rationale. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html.
So I hope someone can explain more clearly the rationale for Category A so we can unambiguously evaluate licenses.
/Larry
******** text copied from Category A licenses listed at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html:
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
*****
provided, however, that the BeOpen Python License is retained in the
Software, alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.
*****
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*****
The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work.
*****
2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and conditions. If none exist, a short notice of the following form (hypertext is preferred, text is permitted) should be used within the body of any redistributed or derivative code: "Copyright © [$date-of-software] World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/"
3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the W3C files, including the date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location from which the code is derived.)
FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
I promised to send this link to the list:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/06/05/forking-and-standards-why-the-right-to-for
k-can-be-pro-social/
I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is
worth thinking seriously about. :-)
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>
www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
Linkedin profile: <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu
From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis@tieguy.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:37 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
Thanks for the heads up, Larry. I subscribe to the list, actually, but have
not been following this thread.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
Hi Luis,
I named you in an email I wrote to Apache legal-discuss@ list. Since this
isn't a private Apache list I have no problem copying you on what I wrote.
/Larry
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:04 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Larry Rosen wrote:
> > I mean only that the original work
> > remains available to others under the same terms under which you
> > received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> > from you too).
Jeffrey Thompson responded:
> I agree that someone distributing Apache code under a
> different license doesn't negate the rights still
> available from the original authors.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have released
under
> various versions of GPL licenses. And others have have released under
> proprietary (non-open source) licenses. Of course, these actions don't
prevent
> people who desire access to the original source to get such from the
original
> source -- namely us.
I agree with that much.
As I responded to Jeffrey about CC-BY, I was talking about contributions we
incorporate into Apache software and then distribute to our licensees. This
was in the context of a suggestion that we remove CC-BY from Category A of
our list of allowed licenses at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
To repeat what most of you already know, all copyrighted works that Apache
incorporates into our projects remain under their original licenses. We
(ASF) do not have the right to change those licenses. We only have the right
(collectively) to distribute our derivative and collective works
incorporating those original works to our public under an ASF copyright. We
only own the copyright in the derivative or collective work and we can
control that work with the Apache License - but we don't own or control the
copyright in the components. See 17 USC 103(b). [I assume nobody assigns
their copyrights to ASF, which is a different legal construct.]
In that context, I question the very rationale for the Category A and B
licenses that we list.
Those licenses we do approve in Category A have some interesting conditions
that I bet we and our downstream users don't always satisfy. Listed at the
end of this email are some examples of conditions in one or more of those
approved Category A licenses. We do, of course, say this: "Many of these
licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for
example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. Ensure you are doing
this when including these works." (I added the underlining to point out that
the attribution portion of CC-BY must have been analyzed previously by
someone here at Apache! Why are we doing it again?)
I suggest that the conditions in CC-BY are not substantially more onerous
than the ones we do accept, although perhaps we ought to talk with our
friends at Creative Commons to get them to simplify their attribution
license. I note also that Luis Villa intends to blog his own feedback on
CC-BY because he sees some problems with it for use at W3C that we haven't
even talked about here. I'll forward that link when I receive it from him.
I'm not suggesting that we like CC-BY, only that the rationale by which we
determine whether to list it is incomplete and inconsistent.
Worse yet, the conditions in all those approved Category A licenses apply to
our downstream Apache licensees as well. We (ASF) can't change those
existing licenses. Anyone who intends to take an Apache work and modify it
had better read all the licenses that apply to it. Are our NOTICE files
up-to-date with respect to these components in our software?
If we only want licenses in Category A that don't have conditions that
affect us or our licensees, we had better purge that list!
I also suggest that we're being both under-inclusive and over-inclusive on
our Category A list. The GPL is an example of a license that we refuse to
include in our Apache software, so we reject it for Category A. The reason
for this has nothing to do with its conditions, since we can avoid the
consequences of that license simply by not distributing derivative works of
GPL software. We reject the GPL because we want to honor the legal
interpretation of "derivative works by linking" promulgated by the FSF, not
because we agree with that rationale. See
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html.
So I hope someone can explain more clearly the rationale for Category A so
we can unambiguously evaluate licenses.
/Larry
******** text copied from Category A licenses listed at
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html:
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in
the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you
may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this
license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the
software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license
that complies with this license.
*****
provided, however, that the BeOpen Python License is retained in the
Software, alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.
*****
. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*****
The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the
redistributed or derivative work.
*****
2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and
conditions. If none exist, a short notice of the following form (hypertext
is preferred, text is permitted) should be used within the body of any
redistributed or derivative code: "Copyright C [$date-of-software] World
Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut
National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University).
All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/"
3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the W3C files, including the
date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location from
which the code is derived.)
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Larry Rosen wrote:
> > I mean only that the original work
> > remains available to others under the same terms under which you
> > received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> > from you too).
Jeffrey Thompson responded:
> I agree that someone distributing Apache code under a
> different license doesn't negate the rights still
> available from the original authors.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is code at the ASF that others have incorporated and have released under
> various versions of GPL licenses. And others have have released under
> proprietary (non-open source) licenses. Of course, these actions don't prevent
> people who desire access to the original source to get such from the original
> source -- namely us.
I agree with that much.
As I responded to Jeffrey about CC-BY, I was talking about contributions we incorporate into Apache software and then distribute to our licensees. This was in the context of a suggestion that we remove CC-BY from Category A of our list of allowed licenses at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html.
To repeat what most of you already know, all copyrighted works that Apache incorporates into our projects remain under their original licenses. We (ASF) do not have the right to change those licenses. We only have the right (collectively) to distribute our derivative and collective works incorporating those original works to our public under an ASF copyright. We only own the copyright in the derivative or collective work and we can control that work with the Apache License – but we don’t own or control the copyright in the components. See 17 USC 103(b). [I assume nobody assigns their copyrights to ASF, which is a different legal construct.]
In that context, I question the very rationale for the Category A and B licenses that we list.
Those licenses we do approve in Category A have some interesting conditions that I bet we and our downstream users don’t always satisfy. Listed at the end of this email are some examples of conditions in one or more of those approved Category A licenses. We do, of course, say this: “Many of these licenses have specific attribution terms that need to be adhered to, for example CC-A, often by adding them to the NOTICE file. Ensure you are doing this when including these works.” (I added the underlining to point out that the attribution portion of CC-BY must have been analyzed previously by someone here at Apache! Why are we doing it again?)
I suggest that the conditions in CC-BY are not substantially more onerous than the ones we do accept, although perhaps we ought to talk with our friends at Creative Commons to get them to simplify their attribution license. I note also that Luis Villa intends to blog his own feedback on CC-BY because he sees some problems with it for use at W3C that we haven’t even talked about here. I’ll forward that link when I receive it from him.
I’m not suggesting that we like CC-BY, only that the rationale by which we determine whether to list it is incomplete and inconsistent.
Worse yet, the conditions in all those approved Category A licenses apply to our downstream Apache licensees as well. We (ASF) can’t change those existing licenses. Anyone who intends to take an Apache work and modify it had better read all the licenses that apply to it. Are our NOTICE files up-to-date with respect to these components in our software?
If we only want licenses in Category A that don’t have conditions that affect us or our licensees, we had better purge that list!
I also suggest that we’re being both under-inclusive and over-inclusive on our Category A list. The GPL is an example of a license that we refuse to include in our Apache software, so we reject it for Category A. The reason for this has nothing to do with its conditions, since we can avoid the consequences of that license simply by not distributing derivative works of GPL software. We reject the GPL because we want to honor the legal interpretation of “derivative works by linking” promulgated by the FSF, not because we agree with that rationale. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html.
So I hope someone can explain more clearly the rationale for Category A so we can unambiguously evaluate licenses.
/Larry
******** text copied from Category A licenses listed at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html:
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
*****
provided, however, that the BeOpen Python License is retained in the
Software, alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.
*****
· Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
· Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*****
The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work.
*****
2. Any pre-existing intellectual property disclaimers, notices, or terms and conditions. If none exist, a short notice of the following form (hypertext is preferred, text is permitted) should be used within the body of any redistributed or derivative code: "Copyright © [$date-of-software] World Wide Web Consortium, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University). All Rights Reserved. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/"
3. Notice of any changes or modifications to the W3C files, including the date changes were made. (We recommend you provide URIs to the location from which the code is derived.)
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/24/2013 02:13:08 PM:
> Jeffrey Thompson asked:
> > Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you
> can distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under
> the same terms under which you received the code?
>
> No. That’s not what I mean. I mean only that the original work
> remains available to others under the same terms under which you
> received that code (from the original licensor and, if you are nice,
> from you too).
Right. Sorry about misinterpreting the other note. I agree that someone
distributing Apache code under a different license doesn't negate the
rights still available from the original authors.
>
> Placing the Apache License on a work means that those Apache terms apply
to
> that work. I can give you permission to distribute that work under
> different licenses, or to sublicense it, etc., but I don’t thereby
> give you permission to undo the (Apache) terms for that work.
>
> As a practical matter, if you distribute that Apache work unmodified
> and put your own license on it, I would consider it equivalent to a
> dual-licensed work under both the Apache License and your license.
> However, if you distribute a derivative work of that work and put
> your own license on it, your license applies to the derivative work
> as a whole and the Apache License applies to the original work within it.
>
> I believe this is consistent with 17 USC 103(b).
>
> /Larry
>
>
> From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:48 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
>
> Larry,
> I just looked again at the Apache license and I don't see any
> statement similar to 4.a that the Work can only be distributed under
> the Apache terms. I see a broad right to distribute, unfettered. I
> also see a sentence that explicitly states that you can have
> separate terms cover your modifications, but how would that withdraw
> the rights from the broad grant?
>
> Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you
> can distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under
> the same terms under which you received the code?
> Jeff
>
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/23/2013 10:52:08 PM:
>
> > Kevan,
> >
> > I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
> >
> > The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache
License
> > also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of
the
> > Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:54 AM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
> >
> >
> > On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller
<ke...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > >>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be
> > >>>> included in Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that
> > license.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0
> > >>>> of that license, specifically,
> > >>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2 questions:
> > >>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache
> > >>>> distributions, and
> > >>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
> > >>>
> > >>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update
> > >>> our web site to reflect this.
> > >>
> > >> Done.
> > >
> > > Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
> > >
> > > 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> > > terms of this License."
> > >
> Jeff
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
>
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jeffrey Thompson asked:
> Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you can
distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under the same
terms under which you received the code?
No. That's not what I mean. I mean only that the original work remains
available to others under the same terms under which you received that code
(from the original licensor and, if you are nice, from you too).
Placing the Apache License on a work means that those Apache terms apply to
that work. I can give you permission to distribute that work under different
licenses, or to sublicense it, etc., but I don't thereby give you permission
to undo the (Apache) terms for that work.
As a practical matter, if you distribute that Apache work unmodified and put
your own license on it, I would consider it equivalent to a dual-licensed
work under both the Apache License and your license. However, if you
distribute a derivative work of that work and put your own license on it,
your license applies to the derivative work as a whole and the Apache
License applies to the original work within it.
I believe this is consistent with 17 USC 103(b).
/Larry
From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:48 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Larry,
I just looked again at the Apache license and I don't see any statement
similar to 4.a that the Work can only be distributed under the Apache terms.
I see a broad right to distribute, unfettered. I also see a sentence that
explicitly states that you can have separate terms cover your modifications,
but how would that withdraw the rights from the broad grant?
Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you can
distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under the same
terms under which you received the code?
Jeff
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/23/2013 10:52:08 PM:
> Kevan,
>
> I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
>
> The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache
License
> also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of the
> Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:54 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
>
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be
> >>>> included in Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that
> license.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0
> >>>> of that license, specifically,
> >>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> >>>>
> >>>> 2 questions:
> >>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache
> >>>> distributions, and
> >>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
> >>>
> >>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update
> >>> our web site to reflect this.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
> >
> > 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> > terms of this License."
> >
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
Larry,
I just looked again at the Apache license and I don't see any statement
similar to 4.a that the Work can only be distributed under the Apache
terms. I see a broad right to distribute, unfettered. I also see a
sentence that explicitly states that you can have separate terms cover your
modifications, but how would that withdraw the rights from the broad grant?
Is it your understanding that unless the license says that you can
distribute under different terms, you have to distribute under the same
terms under which you received the code?
Jeff
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 05/23/2013 10:52:08 PM:
> Kevan,
>
> I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
>
> The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache
License
> also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of the
> Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:54 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons
Attribution
>
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be
> >>>> included in Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that
> license.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0
> >>>> of that license, specifically,
> >>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
> >>>>
> >>>> 2 questions:
> >>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache
> >>>> distributions, and
> >>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
> >>>
> >>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update
> >>> our web site to reflect this.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
> >
> > 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> > terms of this License."
> >
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
RE: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Kevan,
I believe that CC-BY should remain Category A.
The statement you quoted from the license would apply to the Apache License
also. Nobody can distribute an Apache work except under the terms of the
Apache License. As for derivative works, that's another matter....
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:54 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be
>>>> included in Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that
license.
>>>>
>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0
>>>> of that license, specifically,
>>>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>
>>>> 2 questions:
>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache
>>>> distributions, and
>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>
>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update
>>> our web site to reflect this.
>>
>> Done.
>
> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>
> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> terms of this License."
>
> Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
> were previously approved)
Agreed. My bad. I'll scan the mailing list for prior discussions of CC-A.
Barring some revelation or new objections, seems we should move to category
B.
Our treatment of CC-SA (http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa) seems a
bit nebulous. We should make the categorization explicit. I haven't reviewed
the entire license, but 4.a appears to be identical. Which would put it in
Category B. Agreed?
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
>>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>>
>>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
>>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>>
>>>> 2 questions:
>>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
>>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>>
>>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
>>
>> Done.
>
> Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
>
> 4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
> terms of this License."
>
> Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
> applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
> were previously approved)
Agreed. My bad… I'll scan the mailing list for prior discussions of CC-A. Barring some revelation or new objections, seems we should move to category B.
Our treatment of CC-SA (http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa) seems a bit nebulous. We should make the categorization explicit. I haven't reviewed the entire license, but 4.a appears to be identical. Which would put it in Category B. Agreed?
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
>>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>>
>>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
>>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>>
>>> 2 questions:
>>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
>>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>>
>> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
>
> Done.
Drilling down into the actual license, I note the following text:
4.a. "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the
terms of this License."
Doesn't that make this license category B? (Note: this comment also
applies to previous versions of the license, including versions that
were previously approved)
> --kevan
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
>> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>>
>> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
>> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>>
>> 2 questions:
>> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
>> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
>
> Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
Done.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>
> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>
> 2 questions:
> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
Version 3.0 looks ok to me. Unless I hear objections, I'll update our web site to reflect this…
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 13, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> The page http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> says that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A) license may be included in
> Apache releases, but it links to version 2.5 of that license.
>
> We have some content (icons) which are licensed under version 3.0 of that
> license, specifically, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
>
> 2 questions:
> (1) Are things licensed under this OK to include with Apache distributions, and
> (2) Should the legal/resolve page be updated to reflect this?
I have not yet reviewed the 3.0 license. But I would guess that the answer will be yes and yes.
I found the following -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
I should have some more time tomorrow, to look more closely.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org