Surely "entity" covers plurality? - Andrew
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 12:03 -0800, Chris Howe wrote: > 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 === > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
