You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2011/11/10 21:43:00 UTC
License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document Format
(ODF) standard
The ODF Toolkit Podling uses the ODF schema files (the Relax NG format
XML files that define many of the constraints of the ODF standard).
We use the schemas at build time and runtime .
At build time, in our ODFDOM component, we have a code generation
phase (using Apache Velocity) where we generate Java source code (a
typed DOM) based on the ODF schema.
At runtime we have another component, the Validator, that uses the
schema to check whether input documents are valid to the schema. We
do classic schema validation as a prelude to more detailed conformance
checking.
The schemas are not OSS. They are parts of a published standard.
However, they are copyrighted by OASIS (a standards consortium) and
come with the following license:
<!--
Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2
Committee Specification Public Review Draft (CSPRD) 03, 19 January 2011
Relax-NG Schema
Copyright (c) OASIS Open 2002-2011. All Rights Reserved.
All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings assigned to them
in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The
full Policy may be found at the OASIS website.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and
derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its
implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or
in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright
notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works.
However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by
removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the
purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS
Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set
forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it
into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by
OASIS or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
-->
The full OASIS IPR policy, which is referenced in the license, is here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr
Where it speaks of "IPR Mode", ODF is under the "RF on Limited Terms"
IPR mode.
So we have permission to copy, translate and redistribute the schema,
as well as make derivatives "that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation". I believe that our use is covered
by that permission.
I'd like to get consensus that it is fine to include the unmodified
schemas in our source and binary releases, and to generate code from
the schemas that is also included in our releases.
Regards,
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document
Format (ODF) standard
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Maybe allow no-modification inclusion of standards which are open
> (free, redistributable and royalty free)?
In the event that "What is an Open Standard" turns out to be a
thousand post thread without a clear conclusion, I will suggest that a
simple post enumerating a list of essential interfaces for OO to
implement (and therefore include) would likely be quickly approved.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
LEGAL-109 [WAS Re: License classification: Schema files for OASIS
Open Document Format (ODF) standard]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On 11/15/11 13:58, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> IMHO Apache should resolve this tension by applying a common exception
>> (Category-S, say) clause to both weak-copyleft and no-modification. I'll
>> raise this separately.
>>
>
> Maybe allow no-modification inclusion of standards which are open
> (free, redistributable and royalty free)?
Sounds about right to me
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document
Format (ODF) standard
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> IMHO there is tension in http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> between http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b and
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
>
Yes. Although there is a natural sympathy between open standards and
open source, a standard is not source code, and an open standard is
not open source.
Open standards are typically based on granting the following permissions:
1) Permission freely to read and redistribute the standard. (As
opposed to, say, ISO standards which require payment to acquire a copy
of a standard and which then do not allow redistribution).
2) Sometimes (but not always) permission to create derivative works
for translation, etc. But I'm not aware of any standards body that
encourages user to modify the standard in an incompatible way outside
of the committee process. So the "right to fork" generally does not
exist with standards.
3) An IPR statement that generally encourages royalty free
implementation of the standard, typically by having participants in
the standardization process agree to make their patent claims
available to implementors of the standard, often with an reciprocity
clause (if you sue us, we can sue you).
We should also note that standards are evolving and becoming more
technically sophisticated. It is common now for standards to embed
within them machine readable definitions. Sure, it has always been
the case that you might have s snippet of BNF or similar in the spec.
But now we're seeing lengthy XML schemas, source code, and other
definitions. For example, OOXML, contains in the spec the definitions
of dozens of drawing shapes, defined in terms of DrawingML vector
markup. Anyone who wants to create a compatible application will need
to use these definitions. That is the intent of including them in the
spec, to improve interoperability.
The other thing that is different about standards compared to code is
how standards are embedded in legislation and regulation. Although it
would be improper in most countries for legislation or regulation to
require a vendor's specific software application, it is very common to
require the use of a specific standard. So one of the keys to public
sector procurement is the support of applicable open standards. For
open source, including Apache open source products, to thrive in this
area, we obviously need strong support of open standards. And this
certainly has been the tradition. We need a way to continue this
tradition, even as standards are increasing in sophistication.
> IMHO Apache should resolve this tension by applying a common exception
> (Category-S, say) clause to both weak-copyleft and no-modification. I'll
> raise this separately.
>
Maybe allow no-modification inclusion of standards which are open
(free, redistributable and royalty free)?
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document
Format (ODF) standard
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On 11/11/11 14:26, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <rd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 11/10/11 20:43, Rob Weir wrote:
<snip>
>>> to generate code from the schemas that is also included in our releases.
>>
>> I think this one of those more debatable and interesting cases lying
>> close to a fractal boundary. IIRC some projects in this situation have
>> decided that creating a clean room schema for generation is less work
>> than trying to pin down a good legal judgement. This
>>
>
> In this case we're dealing with a 1,000+ page standard where the
> schema definition files included with the standard are the
> authoritative statement of what the standard defines. In other words,
> the specification itself annotates/explains the schema, but the schema
> file itself is an integral part of the standard, and defines
> constraints that are defined nowhere else in the standard.
Sounds that a clean room implementation might take some doing in this
case...
> In any case, I think the generated code has the DNA of two IP parents:
> the schema and the code generator. The code generator is all Apache
> 2.0, so we don't have concerns similar to early versions of GNU Bison.
> The license on the schema does say,
>
> "This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
> others, allows distribution and derivative works that comment on or
> otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
> copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without
> restriction of any kind"
>
> Since the ODF Toolkit is a Java library that enables developers to
> support the ODF standard in their applications, I don't see the
> problem. The ODF Toolkit "assists in its implementation". And the
> generated code is a derivitive work, i.e., transformed from the schema
> using the creative contributions of the authors of the Apache 2.0
> licensed code generation modules.
>
> Where specifically are you seeing the fuzziness?
I think I risk drifting towards speculation about legal interpretations.
Unless someone who's more comfortable jumps in, I think we need to bring
in the internal legal team...
>> (Of course, it is possible that case law may overturn our current
>> understanding of when a work is derived from an standard for the
>> purposes of copyright law...)
>>
>>> include the unmodified schemas in our source and binary releases,
>>
>> IIRC OASIS (and other similar standards) have come up many times before.
>> The current documentation doesn't cover these standards explicitly but
>> implies that non-open source documents are not allowed in version
>> control but may be download at build time and included in binary
>> distributions.
>>
>
> I think the analogous standard is the Ecma OOXML schemas which POI
> uses. We list that under category-B.
IMHO there is tension in http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
between http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b and
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#no-modification
IMHO Apache should resolve this tension by applying a common exception
(Category-S, say) clause to both weak-copyleft and no-modification. I'll
raise this separately.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Standards Best Practice [WAS Re: License classification: Schema files
for OASIS Open Document Format (ODF) standard]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On 11/11/11 14:26, Rob Weir wrote:
<snip>
> I am Chair of the OASIS ODF Technical Committee, so if
> you have any concerns, best practices, etc., let me know and I can
> raise them with OASIS. OASIS prides itself in the openness of its
> standards and with ODF specifically we have many open source
> implementations. So if there is something we should be doing in our
> licenses that we're not currently doing, to make it easier for Apache
> to consume, please let me know.
IIRC and AIUI the major motivation behind the "no modification" clause
in many standards is to prevent confusion by rogue products. There are
other means by which this might be achieved, for example using trademark
law. (Hopefully people will jump in to correct any misunderstands.)
I like the clean copyright "no modifications" approach to passing off
but worry that there are some uses that standards bodies may wish to
encourage (for example, using automated generation or verification to
ensure accuracy or loading the document into computer memory at run time
for display on screen) that a court may later decide are not permitted
by the "no modification" rule. A rogue standards body might be able to
submarine unforeseen charges by this method.
(There are plenty of people on this list with more experience. So
hopefully people will jump in.)
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document
Format (ODF) standard
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<rd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/10/11 20:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>> The ODF Toolkit Podling uses the ODF schema files (the Relax NG format
>> XML files that define many of the constraints of the ODF standard).
>>
>> We use the schemas at build time and runtime .
>
> (Please jump to correct my misunderstandings)
>
>> At build time, in our ODFDOM component, we have a code generation
>> phase (using Apache Velocity) where we generate Java source code (a
>> typed DOM) based on the ODF schema.
>
> So ODF Toolkit generates source from the ODF schema
>
>> At runtime we have another component, the Validator, that uses the
>> schema to check whether input documents are valid to the schema. We
>> do classic schema validation as a prelude to more detailed conformance
>> checking.
>
> The ODF schema is used at runtime for validation
>
>> The schemas are not OSS. They are parts of a published standard.
>> However, they are copyrighted by OASIS (a standards consortium) and
>> come with the following license:
>
> (Of course, works in legal documents mean precisely what they say but
> I'll break it down to aid understand) I read this as follows
>
>> <!--
>> Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2
>> Committee Specification Public Review Draft (CSPRD) 03, 19 January 2011
>> Relax-NG Schema
>>
>> Copyright (c) OASIS Open 2002-2011. All Rights Reserved.
>>
>> All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings assigned to them
>> in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The
>> full Policy may be found at the OASIS website.
>
> definitions elsewhere
>
>> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
>
> allows distribution
>
>> and
>> derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its
>> implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or
>> in part, without restriction of any kind,
>
> some derivative works
>
>> provided that the above copyright
>> notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works.
>> However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by
>> removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the
>> purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS
>> Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set
>> forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it
>> into languages other than English.
>
> upon reasonable conditions
>
>> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by
>> OASIS or its successors or assigns.
>
> (good)
>
>> This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
>> basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
>> INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>
> disclaims warranty.
>
>> -->
>>
>> The full OASIS IPR policy, which is referenced in the license, is here:
>>
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr
>
> The definitions seem reasonable. I can't find any surprises.
>
>> Where it speaks of "IPR Mode", ODF is under the "RF on Limited Terms"
>> IPR mode.
>>
>> So we have permission to copy, translate and redistribute the schema,
>> as well as make derivatives "that comment on or otherwise explain it
>> or assist in its implementation". I believe that our use is covered
>> by that permission.
>
> "use" is sadly a legally loaded term ;-)
>
> Let's focus on specifics...
>
>> I'd like to get consensus that it is fine to
>
> (separate the two specific cases and reorder)
>
>> to generate code from the schemas that is also included in our releases.
>
> I think this one of those more debatable and interesting cases lying
> close to a fractal boundary. IIRC some projects in this situation have
> decided that creating a clean room schema for generation is less work
> than trying to pin down a good legal judgement. This
>
In this case we're dealing with a 1,000+ page standard where the
schema definition files included with the standard are the
authoritative statement of what the standard defines. In other words,
the specification itself annotates/explains the schema, but the schema
file itself is an integral part of the standard, and defines
constraints that are defined nowhere else in the standard.
In any case, I think the generated code has the DNA of two IP parents:
the schema and the code generator. The code generator is all Apache
2.0, so we don't have concerns similar to early versions of GNU Bison.
The license on the schema does say,
"This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, allows distribution and derivative works that comment on or
otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind"
Since the ODF Toolkit is a Java library that enables developers to
support the ODF standard in their applications, I don't see the
problem. The ODF Toolkit "assists in its implementation". And the
generated code is a derivitive work, i.e., transformed from the schema
using the creative contributions of the authors of the Apache 2.0
licensed code generation modules.
Where specifically are you seeing the fuzziness?
> (Of course, it is possible that case law may overturn our current
> understanding of when a work is derived from an standard for the
> purposes of copyright law...)
>
>> include the unmodified schemas in our source and binary releases,
>
> IIRC OASIS (and other similar standards) have come up many times before.
> The current documentation doesn't cover these standards explicitly but
> implies that non-open source documents are not allowed in version
> control but may be download at build time and included in binary
> distributions.
>
I think the analogous standard is the Ecma OOXML schemas which POI
uses. We list that under category-B.
In any case, I am Chair of the OASIS ODF Technical Committee, so if
you have any concerns, best practices, etc., let me know and I can
raise them with OASIS. OASIS prides itself in the openness of its
standards and with ODF specifically we have many open source
implementations. So if there is something we should be doing in our
licenses that we're not currently doing, to make it easier for Apache
to consume, please let me know.
Regards,
-Rob
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: License classification: Schema files for OASIS Open Document
Format (ODF) standard
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On 11/10/11 20:43, Rob Weir wrote:
> The ODF Toolkit Podling uses the ODF schema files (the Relax NG format
> XML files that define many of the constraints of the ODF standard).
>
> We use the schemas at build time and runtime .
(Please jump to correct my misunderstandings)
> At build time, in our ODFDOM component, we have a code generation
> phase (using Apache Velocity) where we generate Java source code (a
> typed DOM) based on the ODF schema.
So ODF Toolkit generates source from the ODF schema
> At runtime we have another component, the Validator, that uses the
> schema to check whether input documents are valid to the schema. We
> do classic schema validation as a prelude to more detailed conformance
> checking.
The ODF schema is used at runtime for validation
> The schemas are not OSS. They are parts of a published standard.
> However, they are copyrighted by OASIS (a standards consortium) and
> come with the following license:
(Of course, works in legal documents mean precisely what they say but
I'll break it down to aid understand) I read this as follows
> <!--
> Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2
> Committee Specification Public Review Draft (CSPRD) 03, 19 January 2011
> Relax-NG Schema
>
> Copyright (c) OASIS Open 2002-2011. All Rights Reserved.
>
> All capitalized terms in the following text have the meanings assigned to them
> in the OASIS Intellectual Property Rights Policy (the "OASIS IPR Policy"). The
> full Policy may be found at the OASIS website.
definitions elsewhere
> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others,
allows distribution
> and
> derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its
> implementation may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or
> in part, without restriction of any kind,
some derivative works
> provided that the above copyright
> notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works.
> However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by
> removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the
> purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS
> Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set
> forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it
> into languages other than English.
upon reasonable conditions
> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by
> OASIS or its successors or assigns.
(good)
> This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS"
> basis and OASIS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT
> INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
disclaims warranty.
> -->
>
> The full OASIS IPR policy, which is referenced in the license, is here:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr
The definitions seem reasonable. I can't find any surprises.
> Where it speaks of "IPR Mode", ODF is under the "RF on Limited Terms"
> IPR mode.
>
> So we have permission to copy, translate and redistribute the schema,
> as well as make derivatives "that comment on or otherwise explain it
> or assist in its implementation". I believe that our use is covered
> by that permission.
"use" is sadly a legally loaded term ;-)
Let's focus on specifics...
> I'd like to get consensus that it is fine to
(separate the two specific cases and reorder)
> to generate code from the schemas that is also included in our releases.
I think this one of those more debatable and interesting cases lying
close to a fractal boundary. IIRC some projects in this situation have
decided that creating a clean room schema for generation is less work
than trying to pin down a good legal judgement. This
(Of course, it is possible that case law may overturn our current
understanding of when a work is derived from an standard for the
purposes of copyright law...)
> include the unmodified schemas in our source and binary releases,
IIRC OASIS (and other similar standards) have come up many times before.
The current documentation doesn't cover these standards explicitly but
implies that non-open source documents are not allowed in version
control but may be download at build time and included in binary
distributions.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org