Re: Intellectual Property and Sandbox SVN

[David E. Jones]

Chris,





1. you (Chris Howe) are not a lawyer


Am I getting this right?













http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html

Note that this is reference from the PMC Guide here:

http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html















-David



On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Chris Howe wrote:

I've already answered on this topic and I'll include my previous answer below because in spite of the conversation in the interim, it still applies just fine. Before that, maybe we should step back a little bit. Let me rephrase what I'm hearing from you and see if I'm understanding right: 2. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents form a process of creating, maintaining and licensing software projects 3. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents were prepared and reviewed by a number of different lawyers and are in their third major revision (that I'm aware of, ie 1.0, 1.1, 2.0), each of those having gone through significant review and discussion 4. the Apache 2.0 license and supporting documents have garnered support from large corporations such as IBM and Sun 5. somehow in spite of all of this they missed some basic tenets of intellectual property law that is part of the USA copyright code Have you considered the possibility that your understanding and interpretations are wrong? Have you considered that this is such a strong possibility that maybe you should start looking for reasons why it works rather than reasons why it doesn't and bias your interpretations in that direction? Have you considered looking around on the internet or in books for more information specifically about how the Apache 2.0 license works (especially if you're not satisfied by the documents on apache.org)? Have you considered that you are spreading a fairly thick and foul smelling cloud of FUD and that this isn't necessarily good for the project? If there really was a problem then this would be important to discuss, but as I said before and I guess you didn't agree with, there is no problem, and what's more is that it's not your responsibility to manage and those whose responsibility it IS to manage have spoken on the topic. I read over your comments last night and based on my understanding of how the licensing and development process fit together there are some pretty significant problems with your assertions. The first thing to consider is what the ASF is all about and how the process works. That is what the apache.org/dev/ documents teach committers and PMC members about, ie the processes they should follow and the things they should be checking. The main thing that committers need to remember is that there are 2 important categories of things that might come in as contributions, or that they might work on. If it is developed with the intent of going into the open source project and is a natural extension or modification to the existing artifacts, then it can go right in and is immediately covered by the Apache 2 license. If something was developed independently or varies a lot from the normal process, or if the source of the software isn't clear (ie exactly who worked on it), and that they did it with the understanding of contributing it and such, then we can't just commit it "willy nilly". Any time there is a higher risk situation then we need to go through a more thorough review and get the incubator folks involved, as described here: If you want to know what the OFBiz PMC, or any ASF PMC, is responsible for and does, this is where to look. So, for an external sandbox you can go ahead with it. If there is anything a committer is unsure about, it will go through the "mini- incubation" IP clearance process. Okay, now I think I've duplicated everything significant in my original answer. So, based on my understanding of the process and recommendations and documents prepared by the actual lawyers, here are some places where I think you assertions might have problems: 1. if something is developed with the intent of contributing it to any ASF project then licensing and distributing it through the ASF under the Apache 2 license will not destroy it's value, in fact it will INCREASE the value; from one way of looking at it, the contribution is only of any value to the world or the developers after it has been committed to the project, if that was the intent/ goal from the beginning 2. a patch or contribution created for such a purpose is not a "Work" on its own from a legal perspective, it is part of a larger Work, namely OFBiz or whatever the ASF project is So, why haven't I asked about this on the legal-discuss mailing list? I explained that in my other post as well. I really don't see an issue to bug them about. They have already documented the process and explained some distinctions between normal commits and what needs to go through the IP clearance process. That's all there is to it.

Daniel,

IMO you are exactly right both on JIRA and it becoming a dead horse
(usually a good sign that has occurred when someone politely asks you
to change the subject line ;) ).

The JIRA process appears perfectly fine for individual works and works
owned by corporations.  The problem I was pointing out to Tim  is that

himself.   The protocol Tim has been following created joint works

MANY contributions has been made in a similar manner).

Whoever has the ability to subscribe to the legal-discuss mailing list
(committers) could you please post the following questions?

Given the following excerpt from FindLaw

he is asking others to follow a protocol that he has not been following instead of individual works (Not meaning to point Tim out specifically, http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html and your own personal

legal background,

"When the copyright in a work is jointly owned, each joint owner can

other owner, provided that the use does not destroy the value of the
work and the parties do not have an agreement requiring the consent of

share any royalties he or she receives with the other owners."

Is it possible for a joint owner to license the jointly owned work
under Apache2 or other compatible license?

It appears on the surface that the Apache2 license destroys the value
of the joint work itself (albeit increasing the value of the ether).


that agreement constitute a partnership between the joint owners?

If it does constitute a partnership, does this partnership bind each
joint owner jointly and severely to any and all liabilities another
joint owner may create in their representations of the joint work?

Thank You!

--- Daniel Kunkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

use or license the work in the United States without the consent of the each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work must If it is only possible with the consent of the other joint owners, does

Hi

Ok, Chris, now you've confused me.

I don't have a problem understanding that collaborative efforts co-
mingled outside of "Apache Assigned" jira issues could have severe
issues, but it seems to me that collaboration is currently possible
via
the inefficient jira patch process.

Isn't it completely appropriate for Collaborator A, say Phani to make
an
"Apache Assigned" contribution in jira which Collaborator B improves
and
again assigns it to Apache in an updated patch?

This still has all of the challenges I've mentioned before,

- One collaborator at a time.
- A quickly disappearing svn code state that the patch was created
against.
- inefficient and often chaotic patch handling.
- likelihood of losing the work to history
- lost opportunity to create strong community with more active
energized
contributors.
- duplication of effort as more than one developer independently work
on
features.
etc.

If this jira patch process is legal, then I think we're at the point
of
beating a dead horse, but hopefully with the wheels of change in
motion.

Daniel

On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:28 -0800, Chris Howe wrote:

Tim,
I do agree that there is a protocol in place, but I do not agree

that

everyone is following it. Those that seem the most opposed to a
discussion about a sandbox are the ones that keep pumping out the

joint

works.  From my limited understanding, this does not appear to be a
legal format to license under open source without exposing the
contributor to partnership liability and the exposing the community
with the task of rooting out the offending code.

I gave you a list of 10 environments that are complex enough and
require
more than incremental changes. Tabling this discussion will

continue to

lose many of the valuable contributions of the community (Like

Phani's

work on Google Checkout integration).

In addition, continuing to table this discussion will increase the
likelihood that offending code makes its way into the project.  If
someone makes a stink about it, my understanding is that the remedy

is

for the ASF and anyone using Apache OFBiz to cease and desist until

the

offending code is removed.  If a business is running off Apache

OFBiz,

how much will it cost them to cease and desist?  If they choose not

to

C & D, how much will it cost them to defend against a copyright
infringement claim?

If my legal understanding is incorrect, someone please post the
question to legal-discuss and get a real lawyer's opinion.  If

there is

no real risk in these joint works being added to the project,

address

it as such.

Regards,
Chris

--- Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Can we all agree on the fact that there is a protocol in place,

that

if followed, allows everyone the ability to pass code around in a

legal format?  This may or may not be the most optimal format for

said collaboration, but it does permit us to contribute back to

the

community in a meaningful way.

Let's table this sandbox discussion until we find a movement

complex

enough that it requires something more than incremental changes

to be

made to the trunk before we can agree to include it.  Does that

sound

reasonable?  Once there is an idea to build something that cannot

follow this incremental pattern, we can evaluate where we are in

terms of resources and determine the best course of action to

follow.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

--
Daniel

*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-
Have a GREAT Day!

Daniel Kunkel           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BioWaves, LLC           http://www.BioWaves.com
14150 NE 20th St. Suite F1
Bellevue, WA 98007
800-734-3588    425-895-0050
http://www.Apartment-Pets.com  http://www.Illusion-Optical.com
http://www.Card-Offer.com      http://www.RackWine.com
http://www.JokesBlonde.com     http://www.Brain-Fun.com
*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-.,,.-*"*-

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature