Chris, I'm no more a lawyer than you are, but generally in accounting and legal terms the word "entity" is used because it covers all eventualities. I guess it's the legalese equivalent of "Party".
I'd be quite surprised if "entity" didn't cover the type of informal group to which you refer. Perhaps a very general legal dictionary/glossary would help, rather than something Apache specific for this? - Andrew On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 13:52 -0800, Chris Howe wrote: > I'm sorry Andrew, > > What I meant to say is: > > AFAIK No, unless the plurality is a partnership. > > --- Chris Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Um, no. > > > > --- Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Surely "entity" covers plurality? > > > > > > - Andrew > > > > > > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 12:03 -0800, Chris Howe wrote: > > > > David, > > > > > > > > I didn't say anything about #3 or #4, but I suppose those are > > > correct > > > > as well. That still doesn't talk to the point of joint works. > > > > > > > > Every document that you have linked to only mentions the > > > distinctions > > > > of copyright owned by a single entity. That individual being a > > > single > > > > person, or that entity being a corporation. > > > > > > > > >From the Apache 2.0 license: > > > > "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by > > > the > > > > copyright owner that is granting the License. > > > > ... > > > > "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity > > > exercising > > > > permissions granted by this License. > > > > ... > > > > "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal > > > Entity on > > > > behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and > > > > subsequently incorporated within the Work. > > > > > > > > There is a distinct absence of a reference of a plurality of > > > owners. > > > > There is absolutely NO mention that I have come across or that > > you > > > have > > > > linked to of works jointly owned. And yet we don't want to > > clarify > > > the > > > > issue by posing the question to the legal brains at ASF and we > > keep > > > > allowing code into the project where the copyright is jointly > > > owned. > > > > This does not suggest sound policy. > > > > > > > > If the lawyers have thought of EVERYTHING then why has there been > > a > > > > need for a 2nd and 3rd revision? If there are revisions, it > > means > > > > something wasn't covered substantially enough to allow us to > > share > > > our > > > > work in the spirit of open source. Revisions are good, but to be > > > of > > > > the opinion that the current revision are impenetrable, without > > > > subjecting it to all possible scenarios including joint works, > > IMO, > > > is > > > > naive. > > > > > > > > We are all capable of overlooking something. Jacques, Scott and > > > > yourself just completed OFBIZ-637 because of an overlooked change > > > in > > > > policy. Why was this policy changed? It could have been > > construed > > > > that the ASF was asserting a copyright on the code that followed > > in > > > > that file. That was not the ASF's intention and has since been > > > changed > > > > so that it can't be construed in that manner. Lawyers apparently > > > had > > > > reviewed that policy many times before the recent policy change > > as > > > > well, right? > > > > > > > > Should the ASF have a policy at all regarding joint works? I > > don't > > > > know. That's what posing the question to legal-discuss would > > > answer. > > > > > > > > It is a bit of a tired argument that you keep asserting that if > > > someone > > > > says something you disagree with and they continue to push the > > > topic > > > > they are either trolling or spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. > > > > > As a > > > > user of OFBiz and as someone trying to extend the capabilities of > > > > OFBiz, I _have fear, uncertainty and doubt. I am looking for > > > somebody > > > > in the project to _alleviate those _fears, _uncertainties and > > > _doubts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Asking questions that raise fears, uncertainties and doubts is > > only > > > > negative if it is put into a forum that the fears, uncertainty > > and > > > > doubt cannot be explained away. This channel is the place to > > > alleviate > > > > fear, uncertainty and doubt. That can only be positive. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding your problems list > > > > > > > > 1. Giving away the source code under Apache2 destroys the value > > of > > > the > > > > work itself. Make no mistake. This can be shown by taking your > > > > initial contribution to this great project. Prior to releasing > > > OFBiz > > > > under the MIT license, could you have licensed the work itself > > (not > > > > consulting) to to a reasonable, knowledgeable person for a fee? > > The > > > > answer in your head should be yes. Now ask yourself, can you > > > > legitimately license that work itself to to a reasonable > > > knowledgeable > > > > person for a fee (not consulting) today? The answer in your > > head > > > > should be a resounding NO. Why? Because by licensing it under > > MIT > > > and > > > > subsequently Apache2, you have destroyed the value of the work > > > itself. > > > > The value of the project itself is greatly raised, but the > > project > > > work > > > > as a whole is not that same work. From what I've read and my > > > > understanding, a single entity can do this, joint owners cannot > > > without > > > > creating undue liability for the other joint owners. > > > > > > > > 2. Patches are in fact a work on their own. From the Apache2 > > > License: > > > > "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or > > > Object > > > > form, made available under the License, as indicated by a > > copyright > > > > notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is > > > > provided in the Appendix below). > > > > > > > > >From the inconsistency of your comments to the Apache license it > > > is > > > > clear you have at least as little certainty in your opinion as I > > do > > > > mine. Please post the question to legal. > > > > > > > > --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > > > I've already answered on this topic and I'll include my > > previous > > > > > > > > answer below because in spite of the conversation in the > > interim, > > > it > > > > > > > > > > still applies just fine. > > > > > > > > > > Before that, maybe we should step back a little bit. Let me > > > rephrase > > > > > > > > > > what I'm hearing from you and see if I'm understanding right: > > > > > > > > > > 1. you (Chris Howe) are not a lawyer > > > > > 2. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents form a > > process > > > of > > > > > > > > > > creating, maintaining and licensing software projects > > > > > 3. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents were > > prepared > > > and > > > > > > > > > > reviewed by a number of different lawyers and are in their > > third > > > > > > > > major revision (that I'm aware of, ie 1.0, 1.1, 2.0), each of > > > those > > > > > having gone through significant review and discussion > > > > > 4. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents have > > garnered > > > > > > > > support from large corporations such as IBM and Sun > > > > > 5. somehow in spite of all of this they missed some basic > > tenets > > > of > > > > > intellectual property law that is part of the USA copyright > > code > > > > > > > > > > Am I getting this right? > > > > > > > > > > Have you considered the possibility that your understanding and > > > > > === message truncated === > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
