El sábado, 20 dici, 2003, a las 14:00 Europe/Madrid, Geir Magnusson Jr. escribió:

On Dec 19, 2003, at 2:27 PM, Ted Husted wrote:


A very subtle concept is that the ASF doesn't actually "own" the codebase. The codebase belongs to its community, and under the Apache License, that community can always "vote with its feet". Since it is the community that gives the software its value (by using and maintaining it), there is an Apache belief that the community is the true owner of the codebase. The ASF just owns the brand and yesterday's copyright.

I believe that this isn't right - the ASF does own the codebase via the copyright, and the codebase is licensed at no cost to any entity that is willing to agree to the terms of the license. That entity, community or otherwise, cannot remove that license or change it unilaterally.

I think the point Ted makes, summarized as: "The ASF just owns the brand and yesterday's copyright." is, actually, subtle:

Because of the Apache License, anybody wishing so can carry the code and keep the development outside of the ASF, with their own rules and licenses. This has only the "brand and attribution" restriction, as per our license.

So, even if nominally, as you say, the code is the ASF property, anybody can re-license under different terms, provided that the ASF license conditions, "the brand", essentially, are met.

In the hypothetical event that the ASF would "close" our License (which, BTW, would be against the ASF charter), the commmunity could just stop contributing the same day (hence the "yesterday's copyright"), and keep the development elsewhere, with just a notice, a copy of the Apache License and a disclaimer (hence the "brand").

This implies that those having easier ability or will to maintain the product are the effective owners of it. as in a rapidly changing environment, software rot takes care of static code bases.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to