Um, no. --- Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 > === message truncated ===
