You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Joe D'Andrea <jd...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/03 21:44:22 UTC
Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Greetings! Apologies if this is an improper venue for asking, but I'm
not sure where else to turn at this point.
I have been tasked with finding something from The Apache Org stating
that derivative works, the originals of which are released under
Apache License 2.0 (unmodified), that:
(a) Is not subject to OPL.
(b) Is not subject to Apache License 2.0, provided it is used
exclusively by the licensee and is not redistributed.
(c) May be used in such a way that third parties that happen to come
in contact with it (e.g., as part of a web application) may be subject
to restrictions of licensee's terms and conditions.
(d) May be provided as a part of paid consulting services.
I'm not sure I even understand what OPL is (and I've asked for
clarification; the closest I can think of is OpenContent License), but
I've been asked to pose these questions regardless ... so here I am.
Feel free to disabuse me of anything above if it is out of whack,
makes no sense, or ask if something needs clarification. (N.B.: I'm
the messenger!)
- JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Joe D'Andrea <jd...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Your client is hardly unusual in this regard. I'll also point out
> that the AL2 the license is very clear that sublicensing is an option.
Absolutely. This is wonderful! At least I know I'm not insane. Well, mostly. :)
I appreciate the example link, Sam - thanks!
- JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Joe D'Andrea <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not a lawyer either.
>
> I sense a pattern here. ;)
>
>> Please be sure that you and your lawyer understand the redistribution section
>> of the license. http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>
>> The license was intended to be very clear as to your rights.
>
> Absolutely. It's very clear to _me_ ... it's just not very clear to
> everyone else. Yet.
>
>> The redistribution terms of the license in section 4 do contain restrictions as to proper
>> attribution of the Apache code when it is redistributed.
>
> Agreed. In this case, the client does not want to be _forced_ to
> share/distribute the derivative work under AL2. However, the words
> "You may" speak volumes to me. It doesn't read "You must".
Your client is hardly unusual in this regard. I'll also point out
that the AL2 the license is very clear that sublicensing is an option.
Here is a concrete example where that has been done:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/webservers/httpservers/
>From what I understand of your client's requirements, new ground is
not being broken here.
> - JD
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Joe D'Andrea <jd...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer either.
I sense a pattern here. ;)
> Please be sure that you and your lawyer understand the redistribution section
> of the license. http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>
> The license was intended to be very clear as to your rights.
Absolutely. It's very clear to _me_ ... it's just not very clear to
everyone else. Yet.
> The redistribution terms of the license in section 4 do contain restrictions as to proper
> attribution of the Apache code when it is redistributed.
Agreed. In this case, the client does not want to be _forced_ to
share/distribute the derivative work under AL2. However, the words
"You may" speak volumes to me. It doesn't read "You must".
- JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I'm not a lawyer either.
Please be sure that you and your lawyer understand the redistribution
section of the license. http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
The license was intended to be very clear as to your rights.
The redistribution terms of the license in section 4 do contain
restrictions as to proper attribution of the Apache code when it is
redistributed.
Craig
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Joe D'Andrea wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Joe D'Andrea wrote:
>
>> Couple if disclaimers:
>> - I am not a lawyer
>
> Roger that.
>
>> - This list can't give you legal advice - you need to get yours
>> from your own
>> lawyer.
>
> Would you believe it if I said a lawyer _asked_ me to pose the
> question here? :)
>
>> The following example may help.
>
> [...]
>
>> Given this I *think* the answer to all your questions above is yes.
>> The AL2 is
>> pretty relaxed about what you can do with the software.
>
> That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks Mark! I appreciate your input.
>
> - JD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Joe D'Andrea <jd...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Joe D'Andrea wrote:
> Couple if disclaimers:
> - I am not a lawyer
Roger that.
> - This list can't give you legal advice - you need to get yours from your own
> lawyer.
Would you believe it if I said a lawyer _asked_ me to pose the question here? :)
> The following example may help.
[...]
> Given this I *think* the answer to all your questions above is yes. The AL2 is
> pretty relaxed about what you can do with the software.
That makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks Mark! I appreciate your input.
- JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Derivative Works and Apache License 2.0
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Joe D'Andrea wrote:
> Greetings! Apologies if this is an improper venue for asking, but I'm
> not sure where else to turn at this point.
>
> I have been tasked with finding something from The Apache Org stating
> that derivative works, the originals of which are released under
> Apache License 2.0 (unmodified), that:
>
> (a) Is not subject to OPL.
>
> (b) Is not subject to Apache License 2.0, provided it is used
> exclusively by the licensee and is not redistributed.
>
> (c) May be used in such a way that third parties that happen to come
> in contact with it (e.g., as part of a web application) may be subject
> to restrictions of licensee's terms and conditions.
>
> (d) May be provided as a part of paid consulting services.
>
> I'm not sure I even understand what OPL is (and I've asked for
> clarification; the closest I can think of is OpenContent License), but
> I've been asked to pose these questions regardless ... so here I am.
Couple if disclaimers:
- I am not a lawyer
- This list can't give you legal advice - you need to get yours from your own
lawyer.
The following example may help.
The ASF has absolutely no issue (as far as I am aware) with me or anyone else
doing the following:
- Downloading Apache Tomcat (or any other ASF product)
- Changing the name to Mark's Cool Server
- Adding a line somewhere in my docs that says "based on ASF software"
- Selling it at $10k - or more :) - a copy as a closed source product.
Given this I *think* the answer to all your questions above is yes. The AL2 is
pretty relaxed about what you can do with the software.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org