David, I didn't say anything about #3 or #4, but I suppose those are correct as well. That still doesn't talk to the point of joint works.
Every document that you have linked to only mentions the distinctions of copyright owned by a single entity. That individual being a single person, or that entity being a corporation. >From the Apache 2.0 license: "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License. ... "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License. ... "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work. There is a distinct absence of a reference of a plurality of owners. There is absolutely NO mention that I have come across or that you have linked to of works jointly owned. And yet we don't want to clarify the issue by posing the question to the legal brains at ASF and we keep allowing code into the project where the copyright is jointly owned. This does not suggest sound policy. If the lawyers have thought of EVERYTHING then why has there been a need for a 2nd and 3rd revision? If there are revisions, it means something wasn't covered substantially enough to allow us to share our work in the spirit of open source. Revisions are good, but to be of the opinion that the current revision are impenetrable, without subjecting it to all possible scenarios including joint works, IMO, is naive. We are all capable of overlooking something. Jacques, Scott and yourself just completed OFBIZ-637 because of an overlooked change in policy. Why was this policy changed? It could have been construed that the ASF was asserting a copyright on the code that followed in that file. That was not the ASF's intention and has since been changed so that it can't be construed in that manner. Lawyers apparently had reviewed that policy many times before the recent policy change as well, right? Should the ASF have a policy at all regarding joint works? I don't know. That's what posing the question to legal-discuss would answer. It is a bit of a tired argument that you keep asserting that if someone says something you disagree with and they continue to push the topic they are either trolling or spreading fear uncertainty and doubt. As a user of OFBiz and as someone trying to extend the capabilities of OFBiz, I _have fear, uncertainty and doubt. I am looking for somebody in the project to _alleviate those _fears, _uncertainties and _doubts. Asking questions that raise fears, uncertainties and doubts is only negative if it is put into a forum that the fears, uncertainty and doubt cannot be explained away. This channel is the place to alleviate fear, uncertainty and doubt. That can only be positive. Regarding your problems list 1. Giving away the source code under Apache2 destroys the value of the work itself. Make no mistake. This can be shown by taking your initial contribution to this great project. Prior to releasing OFBiz under the MIT license, could you have licensed the work itself (not consulting) to to a reasonable, knowledgeable person for a fee? The answer in your head should be yes. Now ask yourself, can you legitimately license that work itself to to a reasonable knowledgeable person for a fee (not consulting) today? The answer in your head should be a resounding NO. Why? Because by licensing it under MIT and subsequently Apache2, you have destroyed the value of the work itself. The value of the project itself is greatly raised, but the project work as a whole is not that same work. From what I've read and my understanding, a single entity can do this, joint owners cannot without creating undue liability for the other joint owners. 2. Patches are in fact a work on their own. From the Apache2 License: "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). >From the inconsistency of your comments to the Apache license it is clear you have at least as little certainty in your opinion as I do mine. Please post the question to legal. --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chris, > > 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: > > 1. you (Chris Howe) are not a lawyer > 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 > > Am I getting this right? > > 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: > > 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 > > 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. > > -David > > > > On Jan 27, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > 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 > > he is asking others to follow a protocol that he has not been > > following > > himself. The protocol Tim has been following created joint works > > instead of individual works (Not meaning to point Tim out > > specifically, > > 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 > > 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 > > use or license the work in the United States without the consent of > > > the > > 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 > > each owner for use or licensing. A joint owner who licenses a work > > > must > > 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). > > > > If it is only possible with the consent of the other joint owners, > > > does > > 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: > > > >> 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. > === message truncated ===
