You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> on 2012/10/01 01:35:35 UTC
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
I find this question a bit odd.
If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
Ralph
On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>
> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>>
>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>
> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf yesterday.)
>
>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>
> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
>
>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in there
>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>
> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
> text though.)
>
>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
>
> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>
>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>> energy to pursue them.
>>
>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>>
>> - Shane
>
> Eric
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Eric McDonald wrote:
>> Many members of the public might make the assumption of a
>> copyright upon seeing some of the examples cited in this thread
>> (your own licenses among them).
>
> Eric, I agree with you.
>
> I wrote my original email in response to Shane's response on this list that
> he "naively assumed that the AL ... is available under the current AL 2.0
> license." I disagreed with that as a legal conclusion. I asked also for
> "other opinions on this topic." I then proposed actual wording for a FAQ
> that would answer questions such as yours, all in my original email.
Can you point me to your original email? I do think that the
recommendation that you made in the following email was one that I
could support:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201210.mbox/%3C038d01cd9f43%245d822d50%24188687f0%24%40rosenlaw.com%3E
In that email, I do see a request for "other opinions on this topic".
What I don't see is "actual wording for a FAQ".
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Eric McDonald wrote:
> Many members of the public might make the assumption of a
> copyright upon seeing some of the examples cited in this thread
> (your own licenses among them).
Eric, I agree with you.
I wrote my original email in response to Shane's response on this list that
he "naively assumed that the AL ... is available under the current AL 2.0
license." I disagreed with that as a legal conclusion. I asked also for
"other opinions on this topic." I then proposed actual wording for a FAQ
that would answer questions such as yours, all in my original email.
I then responded with a second email, making my original point stronger,
because people were persisting in proposing an possibly invalid answer.
I intended no offense, regardless of whether you are soothing your
conscience or covering your posterior. What I did intend was to offer a way
to finesse your original question without giving incorrect advice. I believe
it is wrong to assume that licenses can actually have an effective
copyrighted that would limit anyone's ability to create a similar but
different license. But I'm still open to comments on that legal point if
anyone cares to respond.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric McDonald [mailto:the.eric.mcdonald@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 6:06 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
On 10/2/2012 9:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might
> want to repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ
> that says "it is OK to make derivative works of the Apache License"
> can serve that purpose. (That sentence, too, is purely functional and
> I claim no copyright on it!) As for me, I'd rather educate the public
> that copyright isn't as automatic and encompassing as most people assume.
Many members of the public might make the assumption of a copyright upon
seeing some of the examples cited in this thread (your own licenses among
them). If someone sees a license written by someone who is known to be an IP
attorney and it appears to have a copyright assigned, then is it all that
bad of an assumption to make? (I found your licenses listed in a table on
Wikipedia and actually read one of them before I posted to this list.) That
the apparent copyright might be an act of "chutzpah" was certainly not the
first (or even the last) thing to cross my mind.
Posting my question to this list was a matter of efficiency for me. I felt
that I did enough research for it to be valid. (I certainly was not trying
to create controversy.) Yes, I could've mucked my way through information
provided by the U.S. Copyright Office and perhaps figured out the answer for
at least U.S. jurisdictions. But, based on a past experience of trying to
find out how easily and cheaply I could file a patent with USPTO without the
assistance of a patent attorney (no offense), I opted for the more efficient
route of posting to this list where someone with appropriate expertise would
be able to quickly address my question.
Cheers,
Eric
P.S. I would characterize my question as "covering my posterior" rather than
"soothing my conscience". Due diligence, not emotion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>.
On 10/2/2012 9:52 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might want
> to repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ that says
> “it is OK to make derivative works of the Apache License” can serve that
> purpose. (That sentence, too, is purely functional and I claim no
> copyright on it!) As for me, I’d rather educate the public that
> copyright isn’t as automatic and encompassing as most people assume.
Many members of the public might make the assumption of a copyright upon
seeing some of the examples cited in this thread (your own licenses
among them). If someone sees a license written by someone who is known
to be an IP attorney and it appears to have a copyright assigned, then
is it all that bad of an assumption to make? (I found your licenses
listed in a table on Wikipedia and actually read one of them before I
posted to this list.) That the apparent copyright might be an act of
"chutzpah" was certainly not the first (or even the last) thing to cross
my mind.
Posting my question to this list was a matter of efficiency for me. I
felt that I did enough research for it to be valid. (I certainly was not
trying to create controversy.) Yes, I could've mucked my way through
information provided by the U.S. Copyright Office and perhaps figured
out the answer for at least U.S. jurisdictions. But, based on a past
experience of trying to find out how easily and cheaply I could file a
patent with USPTO without the assistance of a patent attorney (no
offense), I opted for the more efficient route of posting to this list
where someone with appropriate expertise would be able to quickly
address my question.
Cheers,
Eric
P.S. I would characterize my question as "covering my posterior" rather
than "soothing my conscience". Due diligence, not emotion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>.
On 10/3/2012 6:38 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> So it seems the answer to our question is somewhere in state or
>
>> federal law, which I have no idea how to navigate.
Noah, I'm glad to see you were looking at WIPO materials earlier. I
would certainly be more inclined to see if there is any
internationally-accepted convention for this, as the licenses are
distributed internationally.
> Or in case law. See, e.g., /Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress
> International/, 293 F.3d 791 (5^th Cir., 2002) (cert. denied).
> [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html]
>
> This is one of my favorite cases. It put standards organizations on
> notice that they can’t own the law.
Interesting, Larry.... I just read the decision and part of the dissent.
Unfortunately, I don't see how it helps an argument that licenses are in
the public domain. They seem to be a separate class from either a
legislatively-adopted portion of a model code (the class around which
the case centered) or a standard (a class excluded from the case and one
that seems closely akin to a non-legislatively-adopted portion of a
model code). The decision specifically examined cases, where copyrighted
works were enacted into law, where the language of the law is treated as
a fact in the public domain and not the expression of a private
individual or organization.
To use this case, it seems that one would have to demonstrate an
isomorphism between a legal instrument (i.e., a license), created by an
individual or organization, and a law, enacted by a legislature working
for the public. Can such an isomorphism be shown? (I don't know if
"isomorphism" is used in legal discussion or not. I'm someone with a
mathematical background, among other things, trying to play lawyer for a
bit.... ;-)
Thanks for the interesting discussion. Sorry to have created such a ruckus.
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Noah Slater wrote:
> So it seems the answer to our question is somewhere in state or
> federal law, which I have no idea how to navigate.
Or in case law. See, e.g., Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress
International, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir., 2002) (cert. denied).
[http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html]
This is one of my favorite cases. It put standards organizations on notice
that they can't own the law.
/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
From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 1:05 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Thanks for your response, Lawrence.
I took the liberty to check with the Berne Convention, and it states:
"(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to
determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative,
administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such
texts."
So it seems the answer to our question is somewhere in state or federal law,
which I have no idea how to navigate.
cf. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
Noah Slater asked:
> Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless
> the Apache license explicitly declares a license for itself, then
> copyright applies in full affect, as it is a creative work.
> (That it is a functional creative works seems irrelevant
> Software is also a functional creative work... Do legal
> instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
The test of copyright IS NOT whether it is a creative work. I wrote a few
days ago: "I've always assumed that software licenses aren't actually
subject to copyright because their purpose is entirely functional -- namely
to influence the behavior of consumers of copyrighted goods." It appears you
don't agree with me on that point.
Yes, I suggest that some legal instruments have a special status. Would you
want someone to be able to copyright the words "I grant you an open source
license." so that nobody else can utter them without permission? As an
enforceable legal document with conditions and grants of rights, a software
license is functional whereas most software is both functional and
expressive. Even with software there are exceptions, though, with a court
recently ruling that certain header files are not copyrightable because they
too are entirely functional. When a court can't distinguish the functional
from the expressive, you can't copyright it.
Perhaps if you wrote an open source software license as a 14-line sonnet in
iambic pentameter, there would be a great deal of expressive content in it.
But if you went to court to enforce that sonnet as a software license, the
court would deal exclusively with the functional aspects of your legal
statements and ignore the poetry (perhaps with a gratuitous compliment in a
footnote in the court's decision praising your creative brilliance). It is
in that sense that I consider a software license to be entirely functional.
If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might want to
repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ that says "it is
OK to make derivative works of the Apache License" can serve that purpose.
(That sentence, too, is purely functional and I claim no copyright on it!)
As for me, I'd rather educate the public that copyright isn't as automatic
and encompassing as most people assume.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Office: 707-485-1242
From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:06 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Ralph Goers
Subject: Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
following terms:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."
Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
it sounds like no one cares.
There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
though.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Cheers,
Eric
P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
or projects of the ASF.
> Ralph
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>>
>> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>>>
>>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>>
>> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
>> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
>> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
>> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
>> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
>> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
yesterday.)
>>
>>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
>>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>>
>> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
>> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
>> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
>> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
>> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
>>
>>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in there
>>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>>
>> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
>> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
>> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
>> text though.)
>>
>>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
>>
>> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
>> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
>> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
>> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>>
>>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>>> energy to pursue them.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
--
NS
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
'“Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in
words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless
of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals,
manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are
embodied.'
- http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
That seems to cover a any sort of document, including a legal document.
There are no exceptions to this I can see, except to say that federal and
state works are not subject to copyright. (Or an aproximation thereof.)
I also found this:
"Legal documents such as briefs, contracts, and even cease-and-desist
letters written by private attorneys (but not by government lawyers) may be
protected by copyright like any other material "fixed in a tangible medium
of expression." However, greater fair use defenses may be available to
those who copy legal documents. For example, it may be uniquely necessary
to use the precise language of the document; the document may have little
"creative" input; and its copying may not impact the market for legal
services."
- http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/faq.cgi#QID757
I think unless we know for sure, it is safer to assume that copyright
applies here.
(Note there are no specific provisions for software I could find!)
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Lawrence.
>
> I took the liberty to check with the Berne Convention, and it states:
>
> "(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to
> determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative,
> administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such
> texts."
>
> So it seems the answer to our question is somewhere in state or federal
> law, which I have no idea how to navigate.
>
> cf. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>wrote:
>
>> Noah Slater asked:****
>>
>> > Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless ****
>>
>> > the Apache license explicitly declares a license for itself, then ****
>>
>> > copyright applies in full affect, as it is a creative work.****
>>
>> > (That it is a functional creative works seems irrelevant ****
>>
>> > Software is also a functional creative work... Do legal ****
>>
>> > instruments carry some special status in this regard?)****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The test of copyright IS NOT whether it is a creative work. I wrote a few
>> days ago: “I've always assumed that software licenses aren't actually
>> subject to copyright because their purpose is entirely functional -- namely
>> to influence the behavior of consumers of copyrighted goods.” It appears
>> you don’t agree with me on that point.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Yes, I suggest that some legal instruments have a special status. Would
>> you want someone to be able to copyright the words “I grant you an open
>> source license…” so that nobody else can utter them without permission? As
>> an enforceable legal document with conditions and grants of rights, a
>> software license is functional whereas most software is both functional and
>> expressive. Even with software there are exceptions, though, with a court
>> recently ruling that certain header files are not copyrightable because
>> they too are entirely functional. When a court can’t distinguish the
>> functional from the expressive, you can’t copyright it. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Perhaps if you wrote an open source software license as a 14-line sonnet
>> in iambic pentameter, there would be a great deal of expressive content in
>> it. But if you went to court to *enforce* that sonnet as a software
>> license, the court would deal exclusively with the functional aspects of
>> your legal statements and ignore the poetry (perhaps with a gratuitous
>> compliment in a footnote in the court’s decision praising your creative
>> brilliance). It is in that sense that I consider a software license to be
>> entirely functional. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might want
>> to repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ that says “it
>> is OK to make derivative works of the Apache License” can serve that
>> purpose. (That sentence, too, is purely functional and I claim no copyright
>> on it!) As for me, I’d rather educate the public that copyright isn’t as
>> automatic and encompassing as most people assume.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> /Larry****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen****
>>
>> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)****
>>
>> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482****
>>
>> Office: 707-485-1242****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:06 PM
>> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
>> *Cc:* Ralph Goers
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?***
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
>> following terms:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
>> license document, but changing it is not allowed."****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
>> license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
>> full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
>> works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
>> legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html****
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald <
>> the.eric.mcdonald@gmail.com> wrote:****
>>
>> On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> > If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
>> license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
>> most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
>> no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?****
>>
>> Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
>> going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
>> have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
>> assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
>> think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
>>
>> Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
>> the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
>> acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
>> it sounds like no one cares.
>>
>> There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
>> proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
>> my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
>> would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
>> form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
>> though.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who responded.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eric
>>
>> P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
>> will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
>> or projects of the ASF.****
>>
>>
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>> >>
>> >> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> >>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>> >>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>> >>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>> >>
>> >> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
>> >> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
>> >> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what
>> I
>> >> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
>> >> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
>> >> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
>> yesterday.)
>> >>
>> >>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under
>> the
>> >>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>> >>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>> >>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to
>> get
>> >> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
>> >> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
>> >> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
>> >> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not
>> licenses....)
>> >>
>> >>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>> >>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in
>> there
>> >>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>> >>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>> >>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>> >>
>> >> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any
>> name
>> >> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
>> >> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
>> >> text though.)
>> >>
>> >>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>> >>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>> >>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private
>> conversation?
>> >>
>> >> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the
>> FAQs
>> >> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
>> >> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
>> >> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>> >>
>> >>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>> >>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>> >>> energy to pursue them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Shane
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org****
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --
>> NS****
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
>
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
Thanks for your response, Lawrence.
I took the liberty to check with the Berne Convention, and it states:
"(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to
determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative,
administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such
texts."
So it seems the answer to our question is somewhere in state or federal
law, which I have no idea how to navigate.
cf. http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P85_10661
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Noah Slater asked:****
>
> > Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless ****
>
> > the Apache license explicitly declares a license for itself, then ****
>
> > copyright applies in full affect, as it is a creative work.****
>
> > (That it is a functional creative works seems irrelevant ****
>
> > Software is also a functional creative work... Do legal ****
>
> > instruments carry some special status in this regard?)****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> The test of copyright IS NOT whether it is a creative work. I wrote a few
> days ago: “I've always assumed that software licenses aren't actually
> subject to copyright because their purpose is entirely functional -- namely
> to influence the behavior of consumers of copyrighted goods.” It appears
> you don’t agree with me on that point.****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, I suggest that some legal instruments have a special status. Would
> you want someone to be able to copyright the words “I grant you an open
> source license…” so that nobody else can utter them without permission? As
> an enforceable legal document with conditions and grants of rights, a
> software license is functional whereas most software is both functional and
> expressive. Even with software there are exceptions, though, with a court
> recently ruling that certain header files are not copyrightable because
> they too are entirely functional. When a court can’t distinguish the
> functional from the expressive, you can’t copyright it. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps if you wrote an open source software license as a 14-line sonnet
> in iambic pentameter, there would be a great deal of expressive content in
> it. But if you went to court to *enforce* that sonnet as a software
> license, the court would deal exclusively with the functional aspects of
> your legal statements and ignore the poetry (perhaps with a gratuitous
> compliment in a footnote in the court’s decision praising your creative
> brilliance). It is in that sense that I consider a software license to be
> entirely functional. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might want to
> repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ that says “it is
> OK to make derivative works of the Apache License” can serve that purpose.
> (That sentence, too, is purely functional and I claim no copyright on it!)
> As for me, I’d rather educate the public that copyright isn’t as automatic
> and encompassing as most people assume.****
>
> ** **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> Lawrence Rosen****
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)****
>
> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482****
>
> Office: 707-485-1242****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:06 PM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Cc:* Ralph Goers
>
> *Subject:* Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?****
>
> ** **
>
> For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
> following terms:****
>
> ** **
>
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed."****
>
> ** **
>
> Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
> license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
> full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
> works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
> legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)****
>
> ** **
>
> cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html****
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> > If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
> license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
> most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
> no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?****
>
> Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
> going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
> have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
> assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
> think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
>
> Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
> the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
> acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
> it sounds like no one cares.
>
> There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
> proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
> my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
> would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
> form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
> though.
>
> Thanks to everyone who responded.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
> will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
> or projects of the ASF.****
>
>
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
> >>
> >> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >>> A few brief unofficial observations:
> >>>
> >>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
> >>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
> >>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
> >>
> >> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
> >> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
> >> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
> >> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
> >> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
> >> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
> yesterday.)
> >>
> >>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
> >>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
> >>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
> >>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
> >>
> >> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
> >> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
> >> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
> >> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
> >> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
> >>
> >>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
> >>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in
> there
> >>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
> >>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
> >>> consumers derives from our specific license.
> >>
> >> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
> >> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
> >> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
> >> text though.)
> >>
> >>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
> >>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
> >>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
> >>
> >> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
> >> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
> >> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
> >> explicitly to ASF licenses.
> >>
> >>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
> >>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
> >>> energy to pursue them.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
> >>>
> >>> - Shane
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> NS****
>
--
NS
RE: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Noah Slater asked:
> Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless
> the Apache license explicitly declares a license for itself, then
> copyright applies in full affect, as it is a creative work.
> (That it is a functional creative works seems irrelevant
> Software is also a functional creative work... Do legal
> instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
The test of copyright IS NOT whether it is a creative work. I wrote a few
days ago: "I've always assumed that software licenses aren't actually
subject to copyright because their purpose is entirely functional -- namely
to influence the behavior of consumers of copyrighted goods." It appears you
don't agree with me on that point.
Yes, I suggest that some legal instruments have a special status. Would you
want someone to be able to copyright the words "I grant you an open source
license." so that nobody else can utter them without permission? As an
enforceable legal document with conditions and grants of rights, a software
license is functional whereas most software is both functional and
expressive. Even with software there are exceptions, though, with a court
recently ruling that certain header files are not copyrightable because they
too are entirely functional. When a court can't distinguish the functional
from the expressive, you can't copyright it.
Perhaps if you wrote an open source software license as a 14-line sonnet in
iambic pentameter, there would be a great deal of expressive content in it.
But if you went to court to enforce that sonnet as a software license, the
court would deal exclusively with the functional aspects of your legal
statements and ignore the poetry (perhaps with a gratuitous compliment in a
footnote in the court's decision praising your creative brilliance). It is
in that sense that I consider a software license to be entirely functional.
If, however, you want to soothe the consciences of those who might want to
repackage the Apache License with their own nuances, a FAQ that says "it is
OK to make derivative works of the Apache License" can serve that purpose.
(That sentence, too, is purely functional and I claim no copyright on it!)
As for me, I'd rather educate the public that copyright isn't as automatic
and encompassing as most people assume.
/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
From: Noah Slater [mailto:nslater@tumbolia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:06 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Ralph Goers
Subject: Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
following terms:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."
Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
it sounds like no one cares.
There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
though.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Cheers,
Eric
P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
or projects of the ASF.
> Ralph
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>>
>> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>>>
>>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>>
>> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
>> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
>> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
>> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
>> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
>> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
yesterday.)
>>
>>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
>>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>>
>> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
>> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
>> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
>> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
>> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
>>
>>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in there
>>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>>
>> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
>> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
>> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
>> text though.)
>>
>>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
>>
>> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
>> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
>> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
>> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>>
>>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>>> energy to pursue them.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> It seems to me that we might want to grant explicit permission.
Agreed. And perhaps publicly.
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
Looks like a good model for a similar FAQ entry on our own site.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:35:21PM -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>
> wrote:
> > > For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under
> the
> > > following terms:
> > >
> > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> > > license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> >
> > I can think of several examples of licenses that are clearly derived
> > works of the GPL.
>
> The FSF effectively grants a more permissive license to create
> derivative licenses based on the GPL text in its FAQ:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> - RF
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Aahit <aa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:35:21PM -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>
> wrote:
> > > For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under
> the
> > > following terms:
> > >
> > > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> > > license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> >
> > I can think of several examples of licenses that are clearly derived
> > works of the GPL.
>
> The FSF effectively grants a more permissive license to create
> derivative licenses based on the GPL text in its FAQ:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> However, Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the
GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules.
The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in
and of itself.
FAQ -http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Richard Fontana <rf...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:35:21PM -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> > For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
> > following terms:
> >
> > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> > license document, but changing it is not allowed."
>
> I can think of several examples of licenses that are clearly derived
> works of the GPL.
The FSF effectively grants a more permissive license to create
derivative licenses based on the GPL text in its FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
- RF
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
> following terms:
>
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed."
I can think of several examples of licenses that are clearly derived
works of the GPL. IANAL, but I don't quite see how this provision
could be enforced.
>
> Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
> license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
> full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
> works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
> legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
It seems to me that we might want to grant explicit permission.
>
> cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> > If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
>> > license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
>> > most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
>> > no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
>>
>> Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
>> going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
>> have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
>> assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
>> think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
>>
>> Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
>> the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
>> acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
>> it sounds like no one cares.
>>
>> There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
>> proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
>> my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
>> would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
>> form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
>> though.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who responded.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eric
>>
>> P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
>> will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
>> or projects of the ASF.
>>
>> > Ralph
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>> >>
>> >> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> >>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>> >>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>> >>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>> >>
>> >> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
>> >> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
>> >> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what
>> >> I
>> >> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
>> >> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
>> >> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
>> >> yesterday.)
>> >>
>> >>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under
>> >>> the
>> >>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>> >>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>> >>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to
>> >> get
>> >> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
>> >> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
>> >> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
>> >> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not
>> >> licenses....)
>> >>
>> >>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>> >>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in
>> >>> there
>> >>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>> >>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>> >>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>> >>
>> >> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any
>> >> name
>> >> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
>> >> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
>> >> text though.)
>> >>
>> >>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>> >>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>> >>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private
>> >>> conversation?
>> >>
>> >> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the
>> >> FAQs
>> >> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
>> >> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
>> >> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>> >>
>> >>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>> >>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>> >>> energy to pursue them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Shane
>> >>
>> >> Eric
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
For reference, the GPL is copyright the FSF, and is distributed under the
following terms:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."
Not being a lawyer, my lay perspective would be that unless the Apache
license explicitly declares a license for itself, then copyright applies in
full affect, as it is a creative work. (That it is a functional creative
works seems irrelevant Software is also a functional creative work... Do
legal instruments carry some special status in this regard?)
cf. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Eric McDonald
<th...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> > If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache
> license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied
> most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is
> no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
>
> Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
> going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
> have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
> assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
> think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
>
> Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
> the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
> acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
> it sounds like no one cares.
>
> There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
> proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
> my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
> would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
> form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
> though.
>
> Thanks to everyone who responded.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
> will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
> or projects of the ASF.
>
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
> >>
> >> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >>> A few brief unofficial observations:
> >>>
> >>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
> >>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
> >>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
> >>
> >> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
> >> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
> >> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
> >> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
> >> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
> >> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf
> yesterday.)
> >>
> >>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
> >>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
> >>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
> >>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
> >>
> >> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
> >> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
> >> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
> >> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
> >> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
> >>
> >>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
> >>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in
> there
> >>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
> >>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
> >>> consumers derives from our specific license.
> >>
> >> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
> >> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
> >> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
> >> text though.)
> >>
> >>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
> >>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
> >>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
> >>
> >> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
> >> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
> >> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
> >> explicitly to ASF licenses.
> >>
> >>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
> >>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
> >>> energy to pursue them.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
> >>>
> >>> - Shane
> >>
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
NS
Re: License under which the Apache License 2.0 is released?
Posted by Eric McDonald <th...@gmail.com>.
On 9/30/2012 7:35 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> If you change the name of the license it will no longer be the Apache license but something else. No one here is going to care that you copied most of the Apache license to create your new license, so long as there is no confusion between the two. What more do you really need to know?
Really nothing more. I have you writing that no one on this list is
going to care if I copied most of AL 2.0 to create a new license. And, I
have Larry Rosen, someone who I know to be an IP lawyer, writing that he
assumes that software licenses are not actually subject to copyright. I
think these statements give me the main assurance which I sought.
Although I didn't explicitly ask, as I assumed someone would volunteer
the answer, I was wondering, as a matter of courtesy, if the ASF desired
acknowledgement for providing the basis for the derivative license. But,
it sounds like no one cares.
There was also some hope that someone might shoot down all of the
proposed features (enumerated in a previous message in this thread) of
my derivative license as being unnecessary or non-issues and that I
would be able to find the AL 2.0 to be the right tool in its existing
form. I suppose this sounds too much like asking for free legal advice
though.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Cheers,
Eric
P.S. To reiterate, the name of any derivative license which I create
will not have the word "Apache" in it or draw any connection to the ASF
or projects of the ASF.
> Ralph
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Eric McDonald wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your thoughts, Shane. Replies inline below.
>>
>> On 9/30/2012 9:53 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>> A few brief unofficial observations:
>>>
>>> - Posing a more specific question - in particular, with the reason
>>> behind the question (like: I want to create a derivative like X for Y
>>> project) is much more likely to get more... informed commentary back.
>>
>> Good advice. I do, in fact, want to publicly make available a project
>> which would ideally use a modified version of AL 2.0. However, I do not
>> want to make that project available until _after_ I have resolved what I
>> am going to do about licensing. I like most of the wording in AL 2.0,
>> but feel that it may be missing a few features which I would like to
>> have available. (I outlined those in my reply to Daniel Shahaf yesterday.)
>>
>>> - Personally I've naively assumed that the AL(s) is available under the
>>> current AL 2.0 license, since that's what we tend to assume that all
>>> content from the ASF is available under (i.e. including websites),
>>> unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
>>
>> I've been tempted to assume the same. But, it would still be good to get
>> a definitive statement to that effect. I personally don't have an issue
>> with a little bit of recursion, but I don't know enough about law to
>> know if there is any problem in licensing a license with itself.
>> (Constitutions seem to empower themselves, but they're not licenses....)
>>
>>> - From the brand management perspective, I imagine that we would
>>> complain if someone modified the license, but left the "Apache" in there
>>> somewhere. Apache is a trademark for our community developed software
>>> products, and clearly part of our brand awareness within software
>>> consumers derives from our specific license.
>>
>> Of course. There is certainly no intention on my part to co-opt any name
>> or mark of the ASF for my own use. (Supposing that I am allowed to
>> create a derivative license, I may need to attribute ASF in the license
>> text though.)
>>
>>> Didn't there used to be an example somewhere on the web that said "As
>>> long as you change the name, feel free to use or change"? Or am I
>>> misremembering, or perhaps thinking of a long-ago private conversation?
>>
>> I would love to see that example. There was something in one of the FAQs
>> about doing that for software packages derived from software packages
>> maintained under ASF branding, but I didn't see anything pertaining
>> explicitly to ASF licenses.
>>
>>> These do raise good points about some of the legal details of the very
>>> few restrictions in the AL 2.0 - for someone who has the volunteer
>>> energy to pursue them.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the question and the commentary Eric.
>>>
>>> - Shane
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org