[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires
a fee and/or specific permission.
Basically what this is saying is "talk to us". ACM
is suggesting
involvement and acknowledgment of their efforts in
organizing and
archiving these algorithms. I think often these
license clauses (while
legally protecting the the license') are also
grounds for establishing
'legal' avenues of involvement and partnership.
Absolutely. I'm an ACM member as well, and it's a great organization. It's
certainly possible they *might* choose to donate code to the Apache
project. I merely meant to point out that the license has restrictions
that would prohibit simply incorportating the software into an Apache
Group project w/out such permission from ACM.
True
As such, if we
have an interest in using ACM material, we should
contact ACM and get an
official position on the usage of such material for
an Open Source
Apache project and the legal bindings they would
want in such a
relationship..
Well, again, my understanding of the Apache project and its mission leads
me to believe that those "legal bindings" would have to be "you may
release this under the Apache license" w/ no additional restrictions
placed by the ACM.
Yes, that would be quite direct and obvious.
We also have to consider here, what *copies are not
made or distributed
for direct commercial advantage* means in this case
as well.
IANAL, but the plain language seems quite clear. "Direct commercial
advantage" means you are selling the software as a product (with or w/out
source, alone or in combination w/ other software), not e.g. teaching a
course (for which you and some institution get paid) or using the code for
some other purpose which happens to generate revenue but where the primary
activity is not distribution of the code (like leasing computer time on a
supercomputer which happens to have the software installed as a library --
no distribution there).
I still am not convinced that direct commercial advantage means --> sell
a tool/source based on it for a profit. This is the danger of poorly
worded licenses. What does commercial *advantage* mean? (Hope I'm not
sounding too "Clintonesque").
Remember, the core necessity of
Open Source
licensing is about protecting the authors rights,
not about restricting
the reuse and development of Open Source code.
Careful there pilgrim! That kind of talk starts license wars (as very
reasonable people can quite strongly disagree about "the core neccessity
of OSS" -- it's the tension between authors' rights and users' rights that
causes the split between GPL proponents and Apache license proponents).
"Well, thems a fightn' words there cowboy!" I can't promise, but I'll
try not to make so many "generalized" statements in the future ;-)
To end on a non-flamewar-inspiring note, the correct thing to do WRT ACM
stuff is obviously to ask the ACM on a case-by-case basis if they'd be
interested in donating it.
Dave
See, my response to priorities. I do agree.
Cheers,
-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
