On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Tim Vernum wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:12:37 +1100 > From: Tim Vernum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: 'Jakarta General List' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Short Apache licence for source files > > > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > OK, I think I understand slightly better but our license refers to > > "this software" not to any specific file. > > IANAL, IAN-Roy, IAN-ASF, but... > > The license does not give any indication of what "this software" is. > i.e. It doesn't define the scope of the piece of work to which it applies. > > Thus when Roy said: > 'The problem with the 1.1 license is that it lacked a way to define the > scope of what was covered beyond "this file".' > > It means just that - the 1.1 license doesn't define what it applies to. > It refers vaguely to "THIS SOFTWARE", but that's all. > > The concern is that if it is not directly included within the source files > then the scope of "THIS SOFTWARE" is unclear. > Does it include all the source? > What about the included jars? > What if those jars are not under the ASF license? > > This not the case in the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt) because > Term 0 of the GPL defines (ot attempts to define) the scope of the work. > > My understanding is that License 2.0 will include a similar item (but I'm > basing that on guesswork). > Current drafts of the 2.0 license include a solution to this issue, plus a whole bunch of other niceties. Discussions of the new license are happening on a mailing list dedicated to that purpose. In the mean time, I believe all Apache projects should treat the Board member comments quoted above and elsewhere in this thread (and taken out of much larger discussions) as authoritative direction to ASF committers that we should use the long form of the ASF 1.1 license in every source file checked in to Apache CV repositories. It doesn't matter whether it's legally required (to get around the "this software" interpretation) or not. It matters that the ASF Board (representing the foudnation, which is the owner of all this code) told us to do it that way. That's all the reason any of us should need. > While it should be clear to normal people what "this software" means, > lawyers have a nasty habit of not seeing the obvious :) > Craig McClanahan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
