Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Dear Roy, Of course I have used my own brain to read the licenses, thought about the incompatibilities and come to the conclusion that with a bit of good will on all sides we could probably come up with some legal hacks to circumvent the issues. And I am also surprized and frustrated that the communication between ASF and FSF seemed to have been really bad for a couple of years. And that is really puzzling to me indeed because in my last 5 years of working with various FSF and GNU projects I have found people very helpful and cooperative. You seem convinced that the FSF is some evil entity completely unlike the ASF. But if you just talk to any GNU hacker or phone the FSF office you will notice that they are real people that have almost the same concerns as you about how to create an environment where everybody can run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software together without fear of someone trying (through legal or other means) to disrupt that community. If a mail server goes down both a GNU and an Apache hacker cry from frustration. There have been positive signs on both sides. The ASF and FSF seem to finally talk again and try to explain their reasoning and legal interpretations. And that is good to see. But rebuilding trust after such a long time of misunderstandings on both sides about the intentions of the other takes time. When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we could and should just start cooperating on the technical level. Why we are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is just to get on with business for now. So that all projects wanting to cooperate could reuse any new work coming out of Harmony. It seemed the simplest least controversial suggestion that would get us going without needing to bring up the old ASLv2/GPLv2 flamewars again. If you and others think we as Harmony community should not do that during incubation then maybe Apache isn't the place to do this harmony cooperation for now. Cheers, Mark -- Escape the Java Trap with GNU Classpath! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html Join the community at http://planet.classpath.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: ASF mailing lists are protected to some degree by the community's acceptance that the work done on those lists will be distributed under the Apache license. We have a legal argument (not a slam dunk) that nobody could possibly participate on one of our lists without knowing that the products we produce are under the Apache License, and therefore a person posting code would not be able to claim damages for infringing their copyright on redistribution. However, that doesn't mean they lose their copyright -- they can still prevent us from using the code in future releases. Could we not make it a slam dunk by putting some text in the confirmation email sent when you subscribe to the mailing list saying you hereby agree that all email sent to this address are implicitly licensed as ASL2? That is the plan for Apache Harmony - plus a monthly reminder. I was going to then proselytize that to the rest of the ASF. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we could and should just start cooperating on the technical level. Yes, that is our intention still. Why we are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is just to get on with business for now. That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code under the Apache License. I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing list* so that your concerns were met. So that all projects wanting to cooperate could reuse any new work coming out of Harmony. There are two kinds of work-product from Harmony, which reflect the two stated goals, and even the two stated groupings of initial contributors on the original proposal : 1) The modular implementation architecture for VM and class library - this was what I think is our main collaboration point, and we can share experience and define specifications with this license problem being less of an issue. 2) The Apache-licensed implementation of said architecture. It seemed the simplest least controversial suggestion that would get us going without needing to bring up the old ASLv2/GPLv2 flamewars again. If you and others think we as Harmony community should not do that during incubation then maybe Apache isn't the place to do this harmony cooperation for now. Apache is the place for Harmony. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding? The word is sublicense, not relicense... On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:41 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote: Roy T. Fielding fielding at gbiv.com writes: I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing but intentional obstruction from the FSF. Think about that. Roy, I have thought about that, and, speaking for myself, I'd like to thank you for being helpful for the past ten years. I would appreciate it very much if you'd continue being helpful, and continue showing respect for your fellow developers, as that is one of the things Apache is about[1] and one of things I find interesting about it. I have some trouble understanding the sublicensing provision of the Apache license v2, and I believe you were one of the persons drafting it, so I hope you can help me understand it better. From ASL2: [...] 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). [...] 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source form and distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2 triple license (like Mozilla) on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org. Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitely wants to allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different license, to allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case it's the GPL, so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in some of their proprietary products, for example, Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive, i.e. to apply to all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement to carry around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed GPL2/ASL2 version on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not carry the additional ASL around when they redistribute further. The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right, I live in Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents, I have my own license to use, and those that received the Works from me are protected by the liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite the termination provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL does not know the concept of patent termination. Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way? cheers, dalibor topic [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/faq.html#what-is-apache-about - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm at apache.org writes: Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding? The word is sublicense, not relicense... Aha! As Geir was polite to try to explain to me what makes sublicensing different from relicensing, let me have another try, this time with an even simpler setup. Let's say I am the sole, founding member of the hypothetical Non-native-speakers Non-lawyers Union Of Fans Of The MIT Software License. Being a fundamentally freedom loving organisation, in spirit very, very similar to the ASF itself, the NNUOFOTMITSL only distributes software under the MIT license, and refuses to distribute software under longer software licenses, citing hypothetical scientific research that shows that most people do not understand software licenses anyway as soon as they have more than 4 clauses. [1] Alas, the NNUOFOTMITSL has by chance found out that the Apache Software Foundation is an organisation that has produced a huge amount of Works of extraordinary quality. Like many other big organisations, the NNUOFOTMITSL would like to be able to to satisfy the needs of their customers/user/members without confusing them by having a wild mix of long licenses that cover different bits and pieces of those works. And the NNUOFOTMITSL would like to be able to offer ASF's code in their MIT licensed works. Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each source file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the thereby created Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under the MIT license, or under the MIT/ASL2 dual license [2]? cheers, dalibor topic [1] I am sure that would be a fun field for psychology research. [2] To satisfy 4.a. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Hi Geir, On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we could and should just start cooperating on the technical level. Yes, that is our intention still. Good. And I see Tom, David and you will be at Oscon together next week. Probably a good opportunity to get some results. Why we are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is just to get on with business for now. That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code under the Apache License. I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing list* so that your concerns were met. No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing. Cheers, Mark signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Derby as sub-project of Apache DB
Brian McCallister wrote: On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: So what happens now? :-) Logistical details that come to mind are: * adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in progess? yes. Cannot comment on the rest =) I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below. Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer karmas from infrastructure to db? Or are we waiting for some other loop to close first? thanks, -jean * moving the SVN root under the DB project and granting Derby committers karma to the appropriate trees there * updating the project pages in Incubator to reflect graduation * updating the project web site to reflect the move under DB * updating the DB website to reflect the new subproject * change the JIRA category from Incubator to DB * no change to the mailing lists as they already point to db.apache.org I'm sure I've missed some stuff - anyone else? Volunteers? -- Jeremy Daniel John Debrunner wrote: Daniel John Debrunner wrote: So please vote on graduating Derby to a sub-project of Apache DB. Passed with eleven (11) +1 votes (including one ++1 vote :-) Three (3) members of the Incubator PMC voted +1 (Noel, Geir, Roy) Three (3) members of the DB-PMC voted +1 (Brian, Geir, Henning). Thanks, Dan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source form and distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2 triple license (like Mozilla) on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org. Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression is that the ASF explicitly wants to allow people to sublicense ASF's Works under a single, different license, to allow for use in more restrictively licensed software. In my case it's the GPL, so I believe that should be as fine, as any use by IBM or Sun in some of their proprietary products, for example, Yes, we have no problem with that provided our license is followed in regards to retaining the notices and license in the work. Are the provisions of the section 4 supposed to be transitive, i.e. to apply to all steps in the distribution chain, or not? Afaict, the requirement to carry around the Apache License is lost after I pass my sublicensed GPL2/ASL2 version on to others, as they can chose to accept the GPL and not carry the additional ASL around when they redistribute further. No, it isn't lost -- the GPL requires that those notices remain intact as well and it doesn't matter how many times they change hands -- the Apache license remains the way in which the copyright owner gave everyone else the right to reproduce the software. The fact that you added a more restrictive set of terms (GPL) does not change the original terms. The patent retaliation would seem to only concern me (yeah right, I live in Europe anyway ;), but as long as I do not sue people for patents, I have my own license to use, and those that received the Works from me are protected by the liberal provisions of the GPL, that remain in force despite the termination provisions of the ASL, if my recepients chose the GPL, as GPL does not know the concept of patent termination. No, you don't understand. Neither the ASL nor the GPL creates a patent license. Apache has a contributors agreement in which all significant contributors agree to provide a patent license to all recipients of Apache software (including those who received it via a GPL redistribution) which *may* be terminated if the recipient sues the contributor for patent infringement claiming that the work to which they contributed the license infringes one of that recipient's patents. The ASL merely informs the recipient that we have arranged for that patent license to be granted as part of the CLA. In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights are equivalent to those where the license was terminated. I have talked to Eben about that and he claims that the FSF can argue that an implied patent license exists if the patent owner distributes as GPL from the start, but such reasoning has never been tested in court and most lawyers I've talked to say it could only apply to the initial recipients of the GPL'd work and not to redistributors who are unknown to the patent owner. Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way? No, it is not a bug. It is an intentional feature to help those of us who do not litigate our license to keep our developers out of the court system and protect our foundation from submarine submission of patented material. The bug is in the FSF's refusal to fix their own license in spite of the fact that they actually approve of the termination clause. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Friday 29 July 2005 21:14, Dalibor Topic wrote: Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each source file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the thereby created Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under the MIT license, or under the MIT/ASL2 dual license [2]? I have seen that somewhere in actual action. But keep in mind, the license doesn't grant you the Copyright of the original work (which even ASF doesn't own), so the added MIT license only applies to the amendments. And I think it has been determined that CVS/SVN/diffs would be good enough tools to figure out what is what. So, the combined/derived work is licensed to the downstream users under MIT + ASL licenses, not one or the other. Any ASF project that depend on BSD or MIT licensed projects are expected to provide this information (what is what) in NOTICE file(s) distributed with the releases, and the combined work has more than one license attached to it. I hope I manage to keep my tongue right... Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: Hi Geir, On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we could and should just start cooperating on the technical level. Yes, that is our intention still. Good. And I see Tom, David and you will be at Oscon together next week. Probably a good opportunity to get some results. Why we are proposing to just use MIT/X for any harmony contribution is just to get on with business for now. That was not my understanding, as the standard policy is ASF code under the Apache License. I thought we were trying to figure out how we can work the *mailing list* so that your concerns were met. No, I agree with others that having different ways to handle contributions depending on how they were submitted is confusing. Then what do you propose? Having our codebase in SVN under anything but the Apache License is going to be a non-starter. geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Derby as sub-project of Apache DB
Jean T. Anderson wrote: Brian McCallister wrote: On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: So what happens now? :-) Logistical details that come to mind are: * adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in progess? yes. Cannot comment on the rest =) I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below. Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer karmas from infrastructure to db? Or are we waiting for some other loop to close first? I believe we are waiting for the conclusion of the vote by the DB PMC. -- Jeremy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Graduate Derby as sub-project of Apache DB
Daniel John Debrunner wrote: Jeremy Boynes wrote: Jean T. Anderson wrote: I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below. Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer karmas from infrastructure to db? Or are we waiting for some other loop to close first? I believe we are waiting for the conclusion of the vote by the DB PMC. I think we can move forward, as I understand the DB-PMC is voting on adding Derby-PPMC members to itself. That should not hold up any move of svn or karma. According to http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html , it's still the DB PMC that needs to put the request into infra for the move (The request to the infrastructure@ list or the apmail@ alias needs to come from your Project Management Committee.). -jean According to the status file DB-PMC has voted to accept Derby, that was my understanding as well after talking to Brian last week. Dan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT license? No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the Apache license. Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as long as the terms I chose are not contrary to the ASL2. Is the MIT license acceptable as a license for a Derivative Works as a whole? Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of the original work remain intact. If it is, let's say that I create a Derivative Work of Apache Derby by prepending each and every file in the tarball that I downloaded from Apache.org with the text This Software has been modified, and therefore as a whole is licensed under the terms of the MIT license, which follows: That isn't sufficient to create a derivative work under copyright law. [snip] To satisfy requirements for creation of a Derivative Work in the Apache Software License 2.0 of the original Work available from www.apache.org, and in order to be able to chose my own licensing terms, here is a highly creative haiku on software licensing I wrote specifically for this ocassion: Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh. Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Ugh Argh, D'oh D'oh D'oh D'oh Argh! Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work. The text I have says If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. To me, that sounds as if the patent license termination is automatic as soon as the law suit is filed, rather than something that may or may not happen at the patent owner's discretion. Correct? We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case. In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights are equivalent to those where the license was terminated. Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet. The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2. Would it be possible to fix the small bug in the ASL2 this way? No, it is not a bug. It is an intentional feature to help those of us who do not litigate our license to keep our developers out of the court system and protect our foundation from submarine submission of patented material. I am sorry about calling it a bug, and I appreciate the interesting device used to encourage recepients of ASF's software to avoid dragging memebers to court. Still, it is a feature I do not need, as I have no patents, and no intentions to sue the ASF, so I would like to turn that feature into a noop for those I distribute my haiku enhanced Derivative Works under the MIT to. If none of the contributors has patents, then they can't license them in the first place and the clause is already a noop. Lawrence Rosen goes into this particular scenario in some detail wrt to sublicensing and the effects on the patent clauses in the AFL in his book on Open Source Licensing, available at http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm in chapter 10, pages 247-249. Rosen says Does section 10 of the AFL extend through sublicensing to protect the author of A even against patent infringement lawsuits by downstream sub- licensees like X? [..] Do such terms bind—via sublicensing—the recipients of derivative works of AFL-licensed contributions? I find it hard to believe that any court would bind any downstream sublicensee of an open source contribution to any terms and conditions of a license of which he was not informed and didn’t manifestly accept. That is certainly a basic tenet of contract law and a fair result in the context of mass- marketed open source software offered for free over the Inter- net. So to the extent that an AFL-licensed component was sublicensed by D as part of a derivative work, customer X at the end of the chain cannot be bound to the AFL but only to the license with D that he or she accepted. [..]License terms do not pass through via sublicensing unless A insists upon it in the soft- ware license, and the AFL does no such thing. He offers a discussion of pretty much the same scenario I am trying to figure out wrt to the ASL2 in the context of the similar patent grants in the AFL. Would the scenario discussed by Rosen for the AFL be any different for the ASL2? Yes. The patent license in ASL2 is not sublicenseable. It is a direct grant from the contributor to all recipients of Apache
log4net/log4php quarterly report
This was the report for log4net and log4php that was included in the Logging Services board report in May. Their status has not changed significantly. -Mark --- log4net Report -- * Log4net is currently incubating. The incubator approved the release of log4net 1.2.9 beta which is the first release of log4net under Apache. The upcoming release goals are to ensure consistent code quality and improve the available end user documentation. * The project's ongoing goal is to increase the number of active committers and to graduate from incubation. log4php Report -- * Log4php project is trying to increase the number of active committers and to graduate from incubation. * The project maintainer is working on the first release (0.10) under Apache. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
Roy T. Fielding fielding at gbiv.com writes: On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT license? No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the Apache license. Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the MIT license specifically lacks to meet the terms? Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as long as the terms I chose are not contrary to the ASL2. Is the MIT license acceptable as a license for a Derivative Works as a whole? Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of the original work remain intact. OK. I am pretty new to the concept of sublicensing, so please bear with me while I try to figure out what the limits are. I've already seen that different Academic licenses have different ways to go about sublicensing, which is somewhat confusing. Is there some FAQ from the ASF on how the Apache Software License 2.0 works in practice? I'd imagine that to be a regular question for companies and individuals alike, who wish to reuse ASF's software in their own solutions, and are freshly starting to figure out the licensing framework within which the ASF operates. Make money fast by creating propretary forks of ASFs software, that sort of stuff. ;) Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work. OK. Then let me try something else, a bit more creative, that weaves the Apache code together with my work. Let's say I, in a fit of Art, use my webcam to create a mugshot of myself and turn it into a PNG file of, say, 1024x768 pixels. Then I turn the 'face.png' file into a pure HTML rendering of the PNG file, such that in a 1024x768 sized table, each table cell corresponds to one pixel of the PNG picture, and its background colour is chosen according to the colour of the corresponding pixel. In other words, something like http://perl.infoware.ne.jp/~hoyama/toro.gif.html only with a nice picture of myself. For each cell of the huge table, then, I proceed to insert the corresponding character in the stream of the Apache Software 2.0 licensed source code into each cell. In order to have good looking code not ruin my HTMLized picture, I also set the text colour for each cell to the colour of the backgound of each cell, making it invisible, but nevertheless adding to the significance, and weight of my artwork. I chose to publish the resulting HTML file under the MIT license. Is it a Derivative Work under the apache license? Under which license are the single, invisible characters in each cell? Under which license is the output of lynx -dump on the file? If separability is the key issue here, then let my Derivative Work consist of the original Work with all comments, save for copyright notices removed. We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case. Interesting. This is the first time I hear that the termination in a patent retaliation clause is not mandatory. I have always read shall to mean will/must, rather than meaning may. In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights are equivalent to those where the license was terminated. Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet. The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2. It uses pretty much the same language as far as I can see, without mentioning Derivative Works, so the question remains: does the patent grant extend to Derivative Works? Or does it solely cover the unmodified original Works as distributed by the Foundation? If none of the contributors has patents, then they can't license them in the first place and the clause is already a noop. Cool. Maybe all it takes to make specific ALv2 licensed works to be useable within GPLd works would be to have each contributor state that they have some/no patents that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted, for example in the NOTICE file? Then one could safely pick the patent-unencumbered code, and ignore the rest. Would the scenario discussed by Rosen for the AFL be any different for the ASL2? Yes. The patent license in ASL2 is not sublicenseable. It is a direct grant from the contributor to all recipients of Apache software works to which they contributed. OK. There is no patent grant for recepients of Derived Works licensed as a whole under licenses other than the ALv2. Correct? cheers, dalibor topic
Re: Harmony Podlling Quarterly Report
On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote: Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the MIT license specifically lacks to meet the terms? The parts that aren't in the ASL2, particularly in regards to retaining the NOTICE file's notices. Yes, provided the license and notices within the source code of the original work remain intact. OK. I am pretty new to the concept of sublicensing, so please bear with me while I try to figure out what the limits are. I've already seen that different Academic licenses have different ways to go about sublicensing, which is somewhat confusing. You have Larry's book, right? Is there some FAQ from the ASF on how the Apache Software License 2.0 works in practice? No, we prefer to have people read the license itself. I'd imagine that to be a regular question for companies and individuals alike, who wish to reuse ASF's software in their own solutions, and are freshly starting to figure out the licensing framework within which the ASF operates. Make money fast by creating propretary forks of ASFs software, that sort of stuff. ;) They can afford a lawyer who an read it for them. Ditto, it is separable and therefore not a derivative work. OK. Then let me try something else, a bit more creative, that weaves the Apache code together with my work. Let's say I, in a fit of Art, use my webcam to create a mugshot of myself and turn it into a PNG file of, say, 1024x768 pixels. Then I turn the 'face.png' file into a pure HTML rendering of the PNG file, such that in a 1024x768 sized table, each table cell corresponds to one pixel of the PNG picture, and its background colour is chosen according to the colour of the corresponding pixel. In other words, something like http://perl.infoware.ne.jp/~hoyama/toro.gif.html only with a nice picture of myself. For each cell of the huge table, then, I proceed to insert the corresponding character in the stream of the Apache Software 2.0 licensed source code into each cell. In order to have good looking code not ruin my HTMLized picture, I also set the text colour for each cell to the colour of the backgound of each cell, making it invisible, but nevertheless adding to the significance, and weight of my artwork. Again, there is established precedent for artwork that declares such things to be a copy of the original work, not a derivative work. The result is then just a collective work. I chose to publish the resulting HTML file under the MIT license. Is it a Derivative Work under the apache license? Under which license are the single, invisible characters in each cell? Under which license is the output of lynx -dump on the file? If separability is the key issue here, then let my Derivative Work consist of the original Work with all comments, save for copyright notices removed. The Apache License does not give permission to create a derivative work that lacks the copyright notices. We don't own any patents. The contributors own the patents and they choose whether or not the license is actually terminated in that case. Interesting. This is the first time I hear that the termination in a patent retaliation clause is not mandatory. I have always read shall to mean will/must, rather than meaning may. An owner has the right to license what they own however they wish. The only thing that terminates is the Apache requirement that the contributor must provide that license to the person litigating against them. In contrast, if you receive software via the GPL or MIX/X or BSD licenses, there is no patent license at all and your rights are equivalent to those where the license was terminated. Is that any different from someone who has received a Derivative Work based on software covered by the ASL2? Afaict, the patent license grant does not mention granting any rights to Derivative Works. I suppose I am wrong, but I can't see it in the license yet. The patent grant is in the CLA, not ASL2. It uses pretty much the same language as far as I can see, without mentioning Derivative Works, so the question remains: does the patent grant extend to Derivative Works? Read it again. The patent license is granted to the recipients (people/legal entities), not to a copy of software. Derivative Works is a term from copyright law, not patent law, and thus has no relevance to the patent discussion at all. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
