Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
On Nov 8, 2003, at 05:03, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
SUMMARY: Non-free for all three licenses.
=====================================================================
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only.
==
How can you not panic? It's 48K of text!
Copyright (C) 2003 The Apache Software Foundation.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Please, can we avoid this one this time?
2. You. "You" or "Your" means an individual or legal entity
exercising permissions granted by this License. By exercising any
of the permissions granted to You in Sections 4 through 8 herein,
You indicate Your acceptance of this License and all of its terms
and conditions.
basically, this license only applies if I modify/copy/distribute. ok.
B. A "Contribution" is the original version of the Work and any
modification or addition to the Work that has been submitted for
inclusion in the Work, where such modifications and/or additions
to the Work originate from that particular Contributor, or from
some entity acting on behalf of that Contributor.
C. A Contribution is "submitted" when any form of electronic,
verbal, or written communication is sent to the Licensor,
including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing
lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems
that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the
purpose
of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication
that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing
by
the Contributor as "Not a Contribution."
D. Any Contribution submitted by You to the Licensor shall be
under the terms and conditions of this License, without any
additional terms or conditions, unless You explicitly state
otherwise in the submission.
This might actually work. Despite its broad appearance, it seems to
just say (in FAR too many words), "if you send us contributions for
inclusion in, e.g., Apache, we'll assume you gave them to us under this
license unless you tell us otherwise."
4. Contributor Grant of License. Subject to the terms and conditions
of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You:
nitpick: because having just defined "contributors", we couldn't use it.
5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
applicable to software in general, applicable to software in that
specific suit, or applicable to this software?
The license seems to say the first one. Just about any patent is
applicable to software in some way. For example, a patent on widgets
would keep me from writing software that produces widgets. I can't see
that being free.
I have a hard time seeing "to software in that specific suit" as free,
either, though maybe I could be convinced.
I'm much more amicable to "applicable to this software", though.
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any
patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under this
License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
"this license" meaning "this license to Apache" or meaning "all
software licensed under the Apache License"?
In addition, if You institute patent litigation against any
entity
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging
that the Work itself (excluding combinations of the Work with
other software or hardware) infringes Your patent(s), then any
patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work
shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Well, this makes it clear that "applicable to this software" is not the
correct interpretation of the first half of this paragraph.
been excluded from the Derivative Work. If the Work includes
a
"NOTICE" file as part of its source code distribution, the
Derivative Work must include a readable copy of the notices
contained within that NOTICE file, excluding those notices
that only pertain to portions of the Work that have been
excluded from the Derivative Work, in at least one of the
following places: within a NOTICE file distributed as part of
the Derivative Work; within the source code or documentation,
if provided along with the Derivative Work; or, within a
display generated by the Derivative Work, if and wherever
such
third-party notices normally appear.
If the NOTICES file can only include legally required things, like
trademark notices, then this is fine. But there is nothing in the
license that would prohibit me from adding my 315-page Ode to my Gerbil
(who convinced me to work on Apache) to the NOTICES file, and demanding
people distribute it.
So, I don't think that's free in general.
You may add Your own
notices alongside or as an addendum to the original NOTICE
information. The contents of the NOTICE file are for
informational purposes only and do not modify the terms and
conditions of this License.
"informational purposes only"? Does that mean that I can't put
trademark notices there, which are surely for more than informational
reasons?
8. Redistribution with Additional Terms. You may choose to offer,
and
to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity, or liability
obligations and/or other rights consistent with the scope of the
license granted herein ("Additional Terms"). However, You may do
so only on Your own behalf and as Your sole responsibility, not
on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to
indemnify, defend, and hold every Contributor harmless for any
liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such
Contributor by reason of any such Additional Terms.
ok
9. Trademarks. Aside from reproduction of the information within the
NOTICE file and references to the License itself, this License
What? The notice file is informational only, and does not modify the
terms and conditions of this license. Or at least it didn't two
paragraphs ago. This license fails the self-consistency check.
does not grant permission to use the trademarks, trade names,
service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as
required for reasonable and customary "fair use" while describing
the origin of the Work. Further information on guidelines for use
of related marks and/or how to obtain permission for use of those
marks may be found in the NOTICE file, if any is included with
the Work.
This specifies some stuff that can go in the NOTICE file, but still
doesn't stop "Ode to my Gerbil (who convinced me to work on Apache)"
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
finally....
dang it, another?
C. The Work may contain public class or interface declarations
whose names begin with "java", "javax", "com.sun", or any
recognized successors or replacements thereof (the "Restricted
Name Space") that are restricted as per the Java Specification
Participation Agreement between Licensor and Sun Microsystems,
Inc.
snipping things that look like above license.
(d) You must do one of the following:
(1) modify or remove all package, class, interface, field,
and method declarations in the Derived Work such that no
names within the Restricted Name Space remain in the
Derived Work; or
clearly not a free option.
(2) fully implement the Specifications, or later revisions of
those Specifications that are acknowledged by the
Licensor
as successors to the Specifications, without modifying,
subsetting, supersetting, or otherwise extending the
Restricted Name Space or including any public or
protected
packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields, or methods
within the Restricted Name Space other than those
required/authorized by the Specifications being
implemented, and pass the Technology Compatibility Kit
(TCK) for those Specifications; or
clearly not a free option.
(3) cause the Derived Work to be clearly and conspicuously
labeled as "unfinished and subject to change",
"alpha release", "beta release", or "for research
purposes only", and clearly and conspicuously identify
within the documentation and packaging of the Derived
Work that it is not compliant with the Specifications.
and not a free option, either. You can ask me not to claim complains
with the standards --- maybe even, when confusion is likely, to
disclaim compliance with the standard, but you can't require me to
label my derived work not of release quality.
not another...
Apache TCK License
Version 1.0, October 2003
snipping similar parts, again.
(d) You must do one of the following:
(1) remove from the Derived Work all tests that are specific
to features of the Specification and all documentation
describing the Specification and those specific tests; or
not a free option
(2) cause the Derived Work to be clearly and conspicuously
labeled as "not the official TCK for the Specification"
and "for research purposes only", and clearly and
conspicuously identify within the documentation and
packaging of the Derived Work that it is not the official
TCK for the Specification, and further that passing the
tests in the Derived Work does not indicate that an
implementation has passed the TCK for the Specification.
not a free option
Reply to: