Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
Thanks, Greg and Nicola, for your answers. I've already sent the form to the person I mentioned. Now that most of my questions have been resolved I'm off to "distribute" quite a bunch of these forms to all the various copyright holders. After it has been suggested that every single file submitted by a non-committer must be accompanied by a license grant it would really make sense to publish the form somewhere under http://www.apache.org/dev/, for example. That's one step towards making all committers aware that these steps should be followed. Maybe this process could be described on a separate page with just a few sentences. It should also be mentioned that the above also applies if a file with someone else's name has been modified and included in a project codebase as is the case with FOP's hypenation patterns. I'm going to document all the findings from this thread within the next two or three days at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing. Help is welcome. I hope someone with write access will then transfer some of the contents to the Development Information pages. Thanks again to all who have helped resolve our licensing issues so far. On 17.03.2003 21:00:50 Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:17:12PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > I've just received that email. The original author is willing to fax in > > a grant. Question now: Where can I find the form? I've only found the > > one for committers. Thanks a lot! > > > > On 17.03.2003 15:23:55 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > I've received an email a few minutes ago from a FOP contributor telling > > > me that I will receive a confirmation mail from the original author of > > > one of the problematic hyphenation files, that he allows us to use his > > > file. But strictly following the rules I have to ask him to file a grant. > > > I hope he won't mind. > > I've attached(*) the software grant form which they can print, sign, and fax > into the ASF (+1-410-803-2258) or mail to: > > The Apache Software Foundation > 1901 Munsey Drive > Forest Hill, MD 21050-2747, U.S.A. > > (*) no, I don't know where it might be publicly accessible; this is from our > Foundation CVS repos Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > And then there's the files from the original TeX distribution by Donald > Knuth which are assumed to be in the public domain but with certain > restrictions (modified file shall not contain the same filename as the > original). Problem there is that there is not really something you could > call a license associated with the distribution, at least non that I > could find. This is all more or less based on "common knowledge", rather > than hard facts on file. Here are some excerpts from Chapter 30, "The Future of TeX and METAFONT" from Knuth's "Digital Typography", 1999, Center for the Study of Language and Information, ISBN 1-57589-010-4: <---Start---> My work on developing TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern has come to an end. I will make no further changes except to correct extremely serious bugs. I have put these systems into the public domain so that people everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes B, D, and E, [referring here to the 5-volume "Computers and Typesetting" series] anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as long as they do not use the names TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is allowed to call a system TeX or METAFONT unless that system conforms 100% to my own programs, as I have specified in the manuals for the TRIP and TRAP tests Of course I do not claim to have found the best solution to every problem. I simply claim that it is a great advantage to have a fixed point as a building block I welcome continued research that will lead to alternative systems that can typeset documents better than TeX is able to do. But the authors of such systems must think of another name <---End---> BTW, nothing in the excised portions of the above are contradictory, only explanatory. The copyright page for Volume B of "Computers and Typesetting", which volume is entitled "TeX: The Program" says the following: "The program for TeX is in the public domain, and readers my freely incorporate the algorithms of this book into their own programs. However, use of the name 'TeX' is restricted to software systems that agree exactly with the program presented here." Now, I suppose that an argument could be made that the hyphenation patterns are not part of the algorithm, but I think an equally good argument can be made that they are. They are certainly part of the TeX distribution, and Knuth's license documented above extends to the "frozen" version of TeX. If the name is TeX, and the files are a part of it, Knuth's license applies. I appreciate the concern for IP rights, and the desire to be conservative on such matters. I am extremely conservative about such things myself, having made my living off of such rights for years. I just don't know what Knuth could have done to be more clear that these files are in the public domain. I suppose a file in the distribution would have been nice, but ... Actually, there might be one, but I haven't been able to find it either. I think the correct solution here is to install the TeX (not LaTeX) hyphenation pattern files, credit Knuth, make a comment that Knuth's files are in the public domain, add the Apache License (to apply to any additions), and turn our users loose looking for things that might need to be added. A post to the user mailing list and a release note (saying that the hyphenation files are different, and perhaps less comprehensive) would be good also. BTW, I don't see a restriction on the /file/ names being the same, only on the product itself being the same. I apologize that some of the above is redundant from previous postings. I did not cite the authorities previously, and perhaps that will help us get moving here again. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
I've just received that email. The original author is willing to fax in a grant. Question now: Where can I find the form? I've only found the one for committers. Thanks a lot! On 17.03.2003 15:23:55 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I've received an email a few minutes ago from a FOP contributor telling > me that I will receive a confirmation mail from the original author of > one of the problematic hyphenation files, that he allows us to use his > file. But strictly following the rules I have to ask him to file a grant. > I hope he won't mind. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
There's another IMO: Clause 7 expects a restriction that the ASL can't provide. On 17.03.2003 14:32:16 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > See below the Latex License. > > http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html > > It seems to me that clause '8.B" makes this license more restrictive than > the ASF license - and we thus should not allow code(fragements) which are > under this license in downloads from ASF infrastructure. > > Or am I misreading things - the license is long and weildy. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
Thanks, Steven and Dirk for responding! On 17.03.2003 14:28:44 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > > > Before we start here's a little background on the hyphenation stuff: > > > Our hyphenation file are XML files that are derived from TeX hyphenation > > Under what license where the original TeX files ? http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/src/hyph/ Under many different licenses (GPL, LGPL, LPPL, public domain, no license...) That's what makes this clean-up work such a PITA. And then there's the files from the original TeX distribution by Donald Knuth which are assumed to be in the public domain but with certain restrictions (modified file shall not contain the same filename as the original). Problem there is that there is not really something you could call a license associated with the distribution, at least non that I could find. This is all more or less based on "common knowledge", rather than hard facts on file. > > > 2. If the former (of [1]) is true, we need a grant from the copyright > > > holder of the original file, right? What if the original file is unclear > > This depends on what the license was you got it under. > > If there is no (explicit) license; you'll have to indeed get permission of > the authors as the default generally is 'No' (depending on age of the > file and country). Ok > > > 3. (Question is somewhat general) What's the threshold for the necessity > > > of a grant? Does a non-committer have to submit a grant on a single new > > > file? > > If code written by someone else under a non-apache license is imported; it > will need to a grant to become part of the apache proper (as to allow us > to remove the original and cut-and-paste the asf license into it). That's pretty clear. I was rather thinking about people sending a new source file to a mailing list of an Apache project. If a grant is necessary for each and every new file that is submitted, we're going to scare away potential contributors. From reading the mails about the new license 2.0 this seems to be adressed there. Anyway, I get the impression no grant is filed in most cases in most projects at Apache today. Or do I misunderstand? I've received an email a few minutes ago from a FOP contributor telling me that I will receive a confirmation mail from the original author of one of the problematic hyphenation files, that he allows us to use his file. But strictly following the rules I have to ask him to file a grant. I hope he won't mind. > OR > > it needs to be labeled as NOT apache; and have the right license next to > it. See for example in cvs > > apache-1.3/src/regex > apache-1.3/src/regex/COPYRIGHT > > Also note that it is in its own directory. Is that necessary? Isn't putting an xy.xml.LICENSE file alongside an xy.xml file enough to mark it as NOT Apache? > > > 5. Can we modify and relicense under the ASL hyphenation pattern files > > > clearly stated as being in the public domain without having a grant but > > Propably - but depending on what country that('this is public domain') was > 'stated' in and at what day; as the Berne convention was not signed by all > countries at the same time. (The Berne convention effectively killed the > concept of 'Public Domain' or -non- copyrighted material in most > countries - and makes the statement 'this is public domain' somethings > ineffective if not backed up by a license, grant and/or copyright.). Aargh! The world would be so boring if everything were simple. :-) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
Folks, See below the Latex License. http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html It seems to me that clause '8.B" makes this license more restrictive than the ASF license - and we thus should not allow code(fragements) which are under this license in downloads from ASF infrastructure. Or am I misreading things - the license is long and weildy. Dw LaTeX Project Public License LPPL Version 1.2 1999-09-03 Copyright 1999 LaTeX 3 Project Everyone is allowed to distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but modification of it is not allowed. PREAMBLE The LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) is the license under which the base LaTeX distribution is distributed. You may use this license for any program that you have written and wish to distribute. This license may be particularly suitable if your program is TeX -related (such as a LaTeX package), but you may use it even if your program is unrelated to TeX . The section `WHETHER AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE PROGRAMS UNDER THIS LICENSE', below, gives instructions, examples, and recommendations for authors who are considering distributing their programs under this license. In this license document, `The Program' refers to any program distributed under this license. This license gives conditions under which The Program may be distributed and conditions under which modified versions of The Program may be distributed. Individual files of The Program may bear supplementary and/or superseding conditions on modification of themselves and on the distribution of modified versions of themselves, but *no* file of The Program may bear supplementary or superseding conditions on the distribution of an unmodified copy of the file. A distributor wishing to distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program therefore needs to check the conditions only in this license and nowhere else. Activities other than distribution and/or modification of The Program are not covered by this license; they are outside its scope. In particular, the act of running The Program is not restricted. We, the LaTeX 3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Program that conform with whatever technical specifications you wish while maintaining the availability, integrity, and reliability of The Program. If you do not see how to achieve your goal while meeting these conditions, then read the document `cfgguide.tex' in the base LaTeX distribution for suggestions. CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION You may distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only part of The Program is not allowed. You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal notice forbidding modification of that file. You may distribute a modified file of The Program if, and only if, the following eight conditions are met: You must meet any additional conditions borne by the file on the distribution of a modified version of the file as described below in the subsection `Additional Conditions on Individual Files of The Program'. If the file is a LaTeX software file, then you must meet any applicable additional conditions on the distribution of a modified version of the file that are described below in the subsection `Additional Conditions on LaTeX Software Files'. You must not distribute the modified file with the filename of the original file. In the modified file, you must acknowledge the authorship and name of the original file, and the name (if any) of the program which contains it. You must change any identification string in the file to indicate clearly that the modified file is not part of The Program. You must change any addresses in the modified file for the reporting of errors in the file or in The Program generally to ensure that reports for files no longer maintained by the original maintainers will be directed to the maintainers of the modified files. You must distribute the modified file under a license that forbids distribution both of the modified file and of any files derived from the modified file with the filename of the original file. You must do either (A) or (B): (A) distribute a copy of The Program (that is, a complete, unmodified copy of The Program) together with the modified file; if your distribution of the modified file is made by offering access to copy the modified file from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy The Program from the same place meets this condition, even though third parties are not compelled to copy The Program along with the modified file; (B) provide to those who receive the modified file information that is sufficient for them to obtain a copy of The Program; for example, you may provide a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for a site that you expect will provide them with a copy of The Program free of charge (ei
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
> > Before we start here's a little background on the hyphenation stuff: > > Our hyphenation file are XML files that are derived from TeX hyphenation Under what license where the original TeX files ? > > 2. If the former (of [1]) is true, we need a grant from the copyright > > holder of the original file, right? What if the original file is unclear This depends on what the license was you got it under. If there is no (explicit) license; you'll have to indeed get permission of the authors as the default generally is 'No' (depending on age of the file and country). > > 3. (Question is somewhat general) What's the threshold for the necessity > > of a grant? Does a non-committer have to submit a grant on a single new > > file? If code written by someone else under a non-apache license is imported; it will need to a grant to become part of the apache proper (as to allow us to remove the original and cut-and-paste the asf license into it). OR it needs to be labeled as NOT apache; and have the right license next to it. See for example in cvs apache-1.3/src/regex apache-1.3/src/regex/COPYRIGHT Also note that it is in its own directory. > > 4. Some of the hyphenation pattern files are licensed under the LPPL > > (LaTeX project public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). > > We'd like to have clearance to use, modify and distribute files under > > this license in the FOP project. Ack - will post on that in a moment. > > 5. Can we modify and relicense under the ASL hyphenation pattern files > > clearly stated as being in the public domain without having a grant but Propably - but depending on what country that('this is public domain') was 'stated' in and at what day; as the Berne convention was not signed by all countries at the same time. (The Berne convention effectively killed the concept of 'Public Domain' or -non- copyrighted material in most countries - and makes the statement 'this is public domain' somethings ineffective if not backed up by a license, grant and/or copyright.). > > 6. We can't use files containing a restriction like "Can be used freely > > for non-commercial purposes.", except if we can positively identify the > > copyright holder and get a grant, right? Correct - as that would mean that you can download something from apache.org which has _MORE_ restrictive elements in it than the ASF license. Anything we include under 3rd party licenses should be as restrictive or -less- restrictive than our own license. So that when you download something from *.apache.org it can always be used in with the ASF level of freedom; and perhaps some bits may give you even -more- leeway. Never less. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XML FOP: Licensing issues with hyphenation pattern files
I haven't received any reactions to my post. We still have our pending release on hold until the issues are resolved. I wonder if I have taken the wrong approach. Can anybody advise? Thanks! On 06.03.2003 11:10:28 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Hello all (licensing specialists, XML PMC people, fop-devs) > > (I don't know where might be the best place to discuss this. fop-dev is > currently very low-traffic.) > > The FOP team needs help. In February we realized that we had problematic > hyphenation pattern files in our codebase. For example, some of them > were derived from GPL-licensed files. > > Some action has already been taken. I've documented the whole auditing > process and status here: > http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPAudits/March2003 > > I'm at a point where I need some advice on how to proceed from here. > Here are the questions, I hope are the right ones and help us to resolve > these issues quickly. > > Before we start here's a little background on the hyphenation stuff: > Our hyphenation file are XML files that are derived from TeX hyphenation > files (ASCII format). These XML files reside in CVS (xml-fop/src/hyph, > formerly xml-fop/hyph). During build they are parsed into Java objects > and serialized using Java serialization. These serialized objects are > included in the JAR (fop.jar) in the binary distribution. > > 1. Do our hyphenation files have to be licensed under the ASL? Or is it > possible to do something similar we do with Java libraries (external > dependencies) such as JUnit and JDOM (add the file to CVS and have an > accompanying file containing its license)? > > 2. If the former (of [1]) is true, we need a grant from the copyright > holder of the original file, right? What if the original file is unclear > about the copyright holder (multiple names, for example) and about the > license (no explicit license, for example)? Please see the Wiki page for > examples. > > 3. (Question is somewhat general) What's the threshold for the necessity > of a grant? Does a non-committer have to submit a grant on a single new > file? > > 4. Some of the hyphenation pattern files are licensed under the LPPL > (LaTeX project public license, http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html). > We'd like to have clearance to use, modify and distribute files under > this license in the FOP project. > > 5. Can we modify and relicense under the ASL hyphenation pattern files > clearly stated as being in the public domain without having a grant but > giving credit where possible? > > 6. We can't use files containing a restriction like "Can be used freely > for non-commercial purposes.", except if we can positively identify the > copyright holder and get a grant, right? > > Thank you in advance for your help! > > Jeremias Maerki > FOP committer and XML PMC member Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]