Mailing List Archive

Hmmm... the license has two sections which might be applicable, one towards
simple redistribution of Apache, and the other towards distribution of
derivative works. For the former, the resale prohibition applies; for the
latter, all we require is:

* Reuse of "Apache Group" code outside of the Apache distribution should
* be acknowledged with the following quoted text, to be included with any new
* work;
*
* "Portions developed by the "Apache Group", taken with permission
* from the Apache Server http://www.apache.org/apache/ "
*

If he really has "heavily modified" the server core, I'd be inclined to
just let him sell the thing --- the modifications would be impossible to
separate anyway (besides which, our license is commonly understood to
permit sale of derivative works --- or at least one interested outsider
in the W3O has that impression).

FWIW, there are site-builders here who are, in effect, distributing
(modified?) Apache versions to clients as part of their commercial service.
If the license doesn't permit this, it certainly ought to --- I would be
more comfortable with a straight BSD license. Sigh...

rst

Something like this came up the other day in our weekly meeting. We had
a "web" aware snak... I mean lawyer in our office, talking about what we're
doing, and what kind of insurance and the same question came up.

We're buying a very simple perl program that was written some time ago
and is now heavly modified by our consultant.

Forgetting all the goory details, the answer is that he could sell us his
time and modifications, but not the program. (ie the invoice couldn't
say Apache as the product sold ).

<Aram>

At 04:35 PM 9/12/95 MDT, you wrote:
>
>If he doesn't hear from us within a week, I've told him to assume he
>can go ahead.
>
>I can't work out if this acceptable or not.
>
> -= -= -= -= -= -=
>
>Forwarded message:
>
> From: Schrenk Nathan W <nschrenk@students.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Questions about Apache License
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm interested in taking Apache and adding some extensive modifications
>> and modules into it for a large client who would be using it on their
>> web servers. The Apache license contains the following text:
>>
>> * Permission is hereby granted to anyone to redistribute Apache under
>> * the "Apache" name. We do not grant permission for the resale of
Apache, but
>> * we do grant permission for vendors to bundle Apache free with other
software,
>> * or to charge a reasonable price for redistribution, provided it is made
>> * clear that Apache is free. Permission is also granted for vendors to
>> * sell support for for Apache. We explicitly forbid the redistribution of
>> * Apache under any other name.
>>
>> The part that is worrisome to me is the line that says "We do not grant
>> permission for the resale of Apache." Does this prevent me from selling
>> a heavily modified version of Apache to a client? If so, would I be able to
>> give Apache to the client and sell them my modifications and still be within
>> the Apache license? Of course, credit will be given to the Apache project
>> in any case. Before I go off and write this beast I wanted to make sure that
>> I wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes in the Apache development effort.
>>
>> Thanks for your time,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>> --
>> Nathan W. Schrenk
>> nschrenk@uiuc.edu
>
> -= -= -= -= -= -= -=
>
>Keeping the modifications and original Apache separate *seems* acceptable
>to me, it at least ensures that if others do similar things, the customer
>sees they are getting "Free Apache" + paid for work. For this to work, we
>also need to stop the customer selling the combined product to others.
>
>
>Thoughts ?
>
>
>rob
>
>
--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org

In reply to Rob Hartill who said
>
>
> If he doesn't hear from us within a week, I've told him to assume he
> can go ahead.
>
> I can't work out if this acceptable or not.

I laid off the license bashing since you probably had enough of it last time
but the current license is rather meaningless. I'd strongly advise
adopting the BSD license verbatim and just allow unrestricted use.


Ok, let's go through it bit by bit.

/*-
* Copyright (c) 1995 The Apache Group. All rights reserved.
*

Not off to a good start, there's no legal body "The Apache Group". This
copyright is therefore meaningless since it's authorship is indeterminate.

*
* Apache httpd license
* ====================
*
*
* This is the license for the Apache Server. It covers all the
* files which come in this distribution, and should never be removed.

Drivel. This license is bloody huge, can we stick to the legal
necessities.

*
* The "Apache Group" has based this server, called "Apache", on
* public domain code distributed under the name "NCSA httpd 1.3".
*
* NCSA httpd 1.3 was placed in the public domain by the National Center
* for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois
* at Urbana-Champaign.
*

More unecessary drivel.

* "Portions developed at the National Center for Supercomputing
* Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."

Just add this to those files that are derived from NCSA code. I think
those files should also have NCSA copyrights on them with the
author of the changes adding their copyright to mark it as a derived
work.

* Copyright on the sections of code added by the "Apache Group" belong
* to the "Apache Group" and/or the original authors. The "Apache Group" and
* authors hereby grant permission for their code, along with the
* public domain NCSA code, to be distributed under the "Apache" name.
*

More nonsense.

* Reuse of "Apache Group" code outside of the Apache distribution should
* be acknowledged with the following quoted text, to be included with any new
* work;
*
* "Portions developed by the "Apache Group", taken with permission
* from the Apache Server http://www.apache.org/apache/ "
*

Is covered by the Berkeley license, see below.

*
* Permission is hereby granted to anyone to redistribute Apache under
* the "Apache" name. We do not grant permission for the resale of Apache, but
* we do grant permission for vendors to bundle Apache free with other software,
* or to charge a reasonable price for redistribution, provided it is made
* clear that Apache is free. Permission is also granted for vendors to
* sell support for Apache. We explicitly forbid the redistribution of
* Apache under any other name.

Mostly unecessary waffle.


This is the copyright I use

/*
* Copyright (c) 1995
* Paul Richards. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
* verbatim and that no modifications are made prior to this
* point in the file.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by Paul Richards.
* 4. The name Paul Richards may not be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY PAUL RICHARDS ``AS IS'' AND
* ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
* ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL PAUL RICHARDS BE LIABLE
* FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
* DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
* OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
* HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
* LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
* OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
* SUCH DAMAGE.
*
*/

I allow unrestricted usage as long as attribution is made. There's
nothing to stop Netscape from looking over the Apache sources and
stealing all the best ideas, there's nothing to stop a company
bundling it with another product and as this request shows, it's
not easy to deal with a situation where someone wants to base a
product on top of Apache so in practice you're powerless to stop
people making money from selling Apache and it's better to just
allow unrestricted use. What exactly are you trying to prevent from
happening?

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

> In reply to Rob Hartill who said

> This is the copyright I use
>

I would vote +1 on adoption of a Berkely License.

> I allow unrestricted usage as long as attribution is made. There's
> nothing to stop Netscape from looking over the Apache sources and
> stealing all the best ideas, there's nothing to stop a company
> bundling it with another product and as this request shows, it's
> not easy to deal with a situation where someone wants to base a
> product on top of Apache so in practice you're powerless to stop
> people making money from selling Apache and it's better to just
> allow unrestricted use. What exactly are you trying to prevent from
> happening?

I think the original intent was to make sure that Apache code
remained credited as Apache code. I think it would be difficult
to defend it beyond that.

I would also vote +1 on any necessary extension to resolve this
license issue before the next voting session.

In reply to Randy Terbush who said
>
> I think the original intent was to make sure that Apache code
> remained credited as Apache code. I think it would be difficult
> to defend it beyond that.

That's simple enough to incorporate. Add to clauses 1 and 2 something
like "... list of conditions, the following disclaimer, and the
acknowledgement "this product includes software developed as part
of the Apache project" ..." or something along those lines.

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

In reply to Paul Richards who said
<snip>
> * The "Apache Group" has based this server, called "Apache", on
> * public domain code distributed under the name "NCSA httpd 1.3".
> *
> * NCSA httpd 1.3 was placed in the public domain by the National Center
> * for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois
> * at Urbana-Champaign.
> *
>
> More unecessary drivel.
>
> * "Portions developed at the National Center for Supercomputing
> * Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."
>
> Just add this to those files that are derived from NCSA code. I think
> those files should also have NCSA copyrights on them with the
> author of the changes adding their copyright to mark it as a derived
> work.
<snip>
> --
> Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
> Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
> Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)
>

Please keep the NCSA attribution. I think that it is useful
for the information about which NCSA httpd version the code
was originally based on to be included in the source distribution
somewhere. I don't think it needs to be included in every file.
Perhaps it could be placed in just the README and the documentation?

When we were going through our copyright hassles, the impression
I got was that code was either public domain or it wasn't.
If the code was public domain you can request that that it not
be resold but when push comes to shove you can't really do
much about it. Most of the other verbage is just a guideline
that you are requesting people to follow and the majority people
will follow it. If the code is public domain and they choose not
to follow your guidelines, chances are you would lose any legal
battle over it (although if you have the money to burn, you can
drag the legal battle out long enough to consume their profits).

If you reserve the copyright to a legal entity, then the verbage
that follows the copyright statement is important only in that
it is a form of licensing. (eg. In the NCSA httpd 1.5, it's a
license to use it for non-commercial use, with non-commercial
use defined as not placing it in any package that is being
sold.) Anyone not covered by the distributed license has to
contact the holder of the copyright for a license to use the
software in the way they wish to. The problem with reserving
the copyright is that you have to defend it or lose it. I'm
not sure that the Apache group has the resources to actually
defend a copyright, if it should become necessary. And any
truely slimey individual would probably be aware of that. So
I'm not sure what you gain by reserving the copyright to a
group that may or may not have a legal status. Those who are
willing to play by the rules will probably follow whatever
guidelines are listed with the copyright whether that copyright
grants ownership to the public domain or not. It probably won't
matter what your copyright is to those who want to misuse the
code, unless you can convince them that you'll enforce your
license.

--
Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
NCSA Server Development Team
efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu

In reply to Andrew Wilson who said
>
> > > This is the copyright I use
> > >
> >
> > I would vote +1 on adoption of a Berkely License.
>
> Something like Paul suggested? I guess it covers all the bases.
> Provided a 'real' entity can be attributed to. Does Apache Group
> exist in any real sense?

You can attribute a "project" but it can't own the copyright. The author
will have to own the copyright until such a time (if it's ever felt
necessary) that some legal incorporation of the project takes place.

In the legal sense, the author holds the copyright anyway since the
current copyright (to the Apache group) has no meaning.

I'd recommend switching to a Berkeley license, adding a clause that
says this code forms part of the Apache server and that attribution
of the Apache project must be included and then add a file (for
informational purposes) that explains what the Apache project is.
I'd include a list of contributers in that file, nothing more would
be necessary since those people who have made considerable
contributions will have their name in the files they own the
copyright of. Incidentally, you can add the author of the code in
the file even if the copyright is owned by someone else, e.g. NCSA
derived code.

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

In reply to Beth Frank who said
> Please keep the NCSA attribution. I think that it is useful
> for the information about which NCSA httpd version the code
> was originally based on to be included in the source distribution
> somewhere. I don't think it needs to be included in every file.
> Perhaps it could be placed in just the README and the documentation?

I certainly wasn't advocating removing the NCSA attribution. I just
think it should be taken out the the Apache license "template" and
only included in those files that actually are derived from the
NCSA code. I think the origins of the Apache server can be explained
in the "What is the Apache project" file that I suggested in my
reply to Andrew's mail.

>
> When we were going through our copyright hassles, the impression
> I got was that code was either public domain or it wasn't.
> If the code was public domain you can request that that it not
> be resold but when push comes to shove you can't really do
> much about it. Most of the other verbage is just a guideline
> that you are requesting people to follow and the majority people
> will follow it. If the code is public domain and they choose not
> to follow your guidelines, chances are you would lose any legal
> battle over it (although if you have the money to burn, you can
> drag the legal battle out long enough to consume their profits).

If the code is in the public domain then no-one has any rights to
the code whatsover, that's what being in the public domain means.
Very few projects of this size place their code in the public
domain. The most common course of action is to retain copyright
and to license it's use correctly which is what most people here
seem to want to do, i.e. they want to retain some control over how
the code and the Apache name is used. I need to find out what exactly
has to take place to have code placed in the public domain. Simply releasing
it without a copyright isn't enough (see below).

I agree with your point that this is all rather arbitrary window dressing
since unless someone's willing to supply the bucks to deal with the
legal fees then you can't really stop any abuse of the licensing conditions
but I'd like to see the issues cleaned up so that there is at least a
legal basis to carry out a defence should the funds be available. The way
things currently are even if there was a rich backer any law suit would
be lost because of the ambiguity of the current license and the fact that
no-one can legally stand up and claim ownership of the code.

>
> If you reserve the copyright to a legal entity, then the verbage
> that follows the copyright statement is important only in that
> it is a form of licensing. (eg. In the NCSA httpd 1.5, it's a
> license to use it for non-commercial use, with non-commercial
> use defined as not placing it in any package that is being
> sold.) Anyone not covered by the distributed license has to
> contact the holder of the copyright for a license to use the
> software in the way they wish to. The problem with reserving
> the copyright is that you have to defend it or lose it. I'm
> not sure that the Apache group has the resources to actually
> defend a copyright, if it should become necessary. And any
> truely slimey individual would probably be aware of that. So

I don't believe that is true. Under the Berne convention the author
always holds copyright, *even if there is no explicit copyright notice*,
which is why I was so concerned about the original NCSA sources. You will
not lose the copyright if you don't defend it. It's rather hard to enforce
licensing restrictions without the legal muscle to do so though.

> I'm not sure what you gain by reserving the copyright to a
> group that may or may not have a legal status. Those who are
> willing to play by the rules will probably follow whatever
> guidelines are listed with the copyright whether that copyright
> grants ownership to the public domain or not. It probably won't
> matter what your copyright is to those who want to misuse the
> code, unless you can convince them that you'll enforce your
> license.

Having a legally sound copyright and license helps to disuade the more
reputable companies who might otherwise try and repackage the code.
A slime ball is a slime ball and if someone wants to flagrantly break
the law and hope they get away with it because the victim doesn't have
the financial muscle to defend themselves then there's not much you can do
about it.


--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

> Paul Richards
> > Me

> In reply to Beth Frank who said
> > Please keep the NCSA attribution. I think that it is useful
> > for the information about which NCSA httpd version the code
> > was originally based on to be included in the source distribution
> > somewhere. I don't think it needs to be included in every file.
> > Perhaps it could be placed in just the README and the documentation?
>
> I certainly wasn't advocating removing the NCSA attribution. I just
> think it should be taken out the the Apache license "template" and
> only included in those files that actually are derived from the
> NCSA code. I think the origins of the Apache server can be explained
> in the "What is the Apache project" file that I suggested in my
> reply to Andrew's mail.

OK. Thanks.

<snip>
> I need to find out what exactly
> has to take place to have code placed in the public domain. Simply releasing
> it without a copyright isn't enough (see below).

To place the code in the public domain, a statement like the following
is necessary:

We give to the public domain all rights for future licensing of
the source code, all resale rights, and all publishing rights.

And then to keep yourself from being held liable you should also include:

<insert your name here> GIVES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
FOR THE SOFTWARE AND/OR DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION, WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


> I agree with your point that this is all rather arbitrary window dressing
> since unless someone's willing to supply the bucks to deal with the
> legal fees then you can't really stop any abuse of the licensing conditions
> but I'd like to see the issues cleaned up so that there is at least a
> legal basis to carry out a defence should the funds be available. The way
> things currently are even if there was a rich backer any law suit would
> be lost because of the ambiguity of the current license and the fact that
> no-one can legally stand up and claim ownership of the code.

I wonder if "the Apache Group" could be registered as a non-profit
organization?

> > If you reserve the copyright to a legal entity, then the verbage
> > that follows the copyright statement is important only in that
> > it is a form of licensing. (eg. In the NCSA httpd 1.5, it's a
> > license to use it for non-commercial use, with non-commercial
> > use defined as not placing it in any package that is being
> > sold.) Anyone not covered by the distributed license has to
> > contact the holder of the copyright for a license to use the
> > software in the way they wish to. The problem with reserving
> > the copyright is that you have to defend it or lose it. I'm
> > not sure that the Apache group has the resources to actually
> > defend a copyright, if it should become necessary. And any
> > truely slimey individual would probably be aware of that. So
>
> I don't believe that is true. Under the Berne convention the author
> always holds copyright, *even if there is no explicit copyright notice*,

Technically true, but of dubious enforcement value. It is easier to
prove that something without an explicite copyright statement has reverted
to the public domain or was intended to be placed there.

> which is why I was so concerned about the original NCSA sources. You will
> not lose the copyright if you don't defend it. It's rather hard to enforce
> licensing restrictions without the legal muscle to do so though.

I think you're wrong here. If you don't defend a copyright (eg you know
of a violation and don't do anything about it) there is legal precident
for an arguement that it has lapsed into the public domain. Legal warned
us that once we copyright the code, we have to notify them if we discover
anyone violating the copyright.

--
Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
NCSA Server Development Team
efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu

In reply to Beth Frank who said
>
>
> I wonder if "the Apache Group" could be registered as a non-profit
> organization?
>

If someone incorporates it yes. The XFree86 group did exactly this and
the *BSD groups have been looking into it too.

>
> Technically true, but of dubious enforcement value. It is easier to
> prove that something without an explicite copyright statement has reverted
> to the public domain or was intended to be placed there.
>

Possibly, but these are all things that would have to be resolved by a legal
ruling and as a general principle I treat anything without an explicit
copyright and license as being off limits since the letter of the law
states as much.

> > which is why I was so concerned about the original NCSA sources. You will
> > not lose the copyright if you don't defend it. It's rather hard to enforce
> > licensing restrictions without the legal muscle to do so though.
>
> I think you're wrong here. If you don't defend a copyright (eg you know
> of a violation and don't do anything about it) there is legal precident
> for an arguement that it has lapsed into the public domain. Legal warned
> us that once we copyright the code, we have to notify them if we discover
> anyone violating the copyright.

Ok, that sounds right, especially since your Legal says so :-) When it
comes down to it I'm not a lawyer, I've just been involved in these
processes a lot.

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

Can someone with time prepare a patch for the license based on Paul's
version (or anything else you prefer)..

Look like I've got my own copyright battle coming up - some .com
site has swiped the Internet Movie Database and put it online despite
a clear license which says they can't. It's a warzone out there kids.

> This is the copyright I [Paul] use
>
> /*
> * Copyright (c) 1995
> * Paul Richards. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> * verbatim and that no modifications are made prior to this
> * point in the file.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> * must display the following acknowledgement:
> * This product includes software developed by Paul Richards.
> * 4. The name Paul Richards may not be used to endorse or promote products
> * derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY PAUL RICHARDS ``AS IS'' AND
> * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL PAUL RICHARDS BE LIABLE
> * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
> * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
> * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
> * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
> * SUCH DAMAGE.
> *
> */

> > I think you're wrong here. If you don't defend a copyright (eg you know

UK or USA ?

> > of a violation and don't do anything about it) there is legal precident
> > for an arguement that it has lapsed into the public domain. Legal warned
> > us that once we copyright the code, we have to notify them if we discover
> > anyone violating the copyright.

> Ok, that sounds right, especially since your Legal says so :-) When it
> comes down to it I'm not a lawyer, I've just been involved in these
> processes a lot.

Well, I think this area is a mess, best left to the lawyers. The countries
involved have either napolenic law, english law and two seriously different
deratives. So a behaviour pattern which fits all 4 major options will be hard
to find; esp. as they are quite incompatible. I.e. Napoleonic vs you USA guys.
The English and Canadians float somewhere in the middle. The incompatibility is
quite apparant where it concerns matters as discussed above; i.e. setting precident
by *not* doing anything.

Dw.

> > > I think you're wrong here. If you don't defend a copyright (eg you know
>
> UK or USA ?

USA

> > > of a violation and don't do anything about it) there is legal precident
> > > for an arguement that it has lapsed into the public domain. Legal warned
> > > us that once we copyright the code, we have to notify them if we discover
> > > anyone violating the copyright.
>
> > Ok, that sounds right, especially since your Legal says so :-) When it
> > comes down to it I'm not a lawyer, I've just been involved in these
> > processes a lot.
>
> Well, I think this area is a mess, best left to the lawyers. The countries
> involved have either napolenic law, english law and two seriously different
> deratives. So a behaviour pattern which fits all 4 major options will be hard
> to find; esp. as they are quite incompatible. I.e. Napoleonic vs you USA guys.
> The English and Canadians float somewhere in the middle. The incompatibility is
> quite apparant where it concerns matters as discussed above; i.e. setting precident
> by *not* doing anything.
>
> Dw.


--
Elizabeth(Beth) Frank
NCSA Server Development Team
efrank@ncsa.uiuc.edu

Paul Richards writes:
> I laid off the license bashing since you probably had enough of it last time
> but the current license is rather meaningless. I'd strongly advise
> adopting the BSD license verbatim and just allow unrestricted use.

I'll toss in a vote for the BSD license.

And yes, I'm from a commercial site but I'm also the author of
Plexus, a public domain server distribution (no copylicense at all).
Also, I'm only here because someone from the Apache Group (forgot who)
contacted me about shipping Apache with BSD/OS.

> product on top of Apache so in practice you're powerless to stop
> people making money from selling Apache and it's better to just
> allow unrestricted use. What exactly are you trying to prevent from
> happening?
Exactly.

For example, my goal in writting Plexus was to improve the HTTP
protocol as much as possible and I felt this was best accomplished
if anyone could use the code in anyway they needed without worrying
about copyright restrictions. I "ask" that people give me credit
if they use the code but I also explicitly do not require it --
here is the relevant part:
Plexus and related utilities are in the Public Domain; you are free to
redistribute it or even resell it without restriction.

I ask (but do not require) that you leave the original credits and
mention any changes you made.

I *do* believe that the UCB (aka BSD) copylicense is reasonable
and I'm not suggesting you place Apache in the public domain.
Just giving some perspective.

Just as a note... I'd like to second Beth's request that our acknowledgments
list mention the original NCSA code base (and Rob McCool). A lot of the code
we ship is visibly derived from theirs (not to mention the CGI scripts and
other superstructure which we've barely touched); legal matters aside, leaving
them off a credits list after this is just plain boorish.

rst

> > This is the copyright I use
> >
>
> I would vote +1 on adoption of a Berkely License.

Something like Paul suggested? I guess it covers all the bases.
Provided a 'real' entity can be attributed to. Does Apache Group
exist in any real sense?

> I think the original intent was to make sure that Apache code
> remained credited as Apache code. I think it would be difficult
> to defend it beyond that.

Agreed.

> I would also vote +1 on any necessary extension to resolve this
> license issue before the next voting session.

+1 this is clearly a more important way of preserving attribution
than by puting some credits page on the home site.

Ay

> Can someone with time prepare a patch for the license based on Paul's
> version (or anything else you prefer)..
>
> Look like I've got my own copyright battle coming up - some .com
> site has swiped the Internet Movie Database and put it online despite
> a clear license which says they can't. It's a warzone out there kids.

Let us know who they are. Perhaps we could arrange a, er, problem with their
DNS?

Rilly, naaasty place the internet. *shivver*

Ay.

I think Paul has made some excellent points about the license, and
probably has more experience with this than anyone else on the team. He
knows where our heads are in terms of how we want this server to be used
abd the restrictions we want... if he were to submit a patch on the
license I would probably +1 it. This should be resolved before a +1. I
fully support keeping a mention to NCSA and Rob McCool in as well.

As to the legality of the name "Apache Group" - whatever minimal action
can be taken to secure that name, perhaps even trademark it, let's do
it. I'll probably be the one paying $50/year to get the domain name
anyways, so I'm willing to be one of the "names" on whatever legal
documents need to be there - Organic can be a sponsoring organization if
need be as well.

Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

In reply to Andrew Wilson who said
>
> > I think Paul has made some excellent points about the license, and
> > probably has more experience with this than anyone else on the team. He
> > knows where our heads are in terms of how we want this server to be used
> > abd the restrictions we want... if he were to submit a patch on the
> > license I would probably +1 it. This should be resolved before a +1. I
> > fully support keeping a mention to NCSA and Rob McCool in as well.
>
> Sound

Ok, I'll work in a license and look over the code etc.

>
> > As to the legality of the name "Apache Group" - whatever minimal action
> > can be taken to secure that name, perhaps even trademark it, let's do
> > it. I'll probably be the one paying $50/year to get the domain name
> > anyways, so I'm willing to be one of the "names" on whatever legal
> > documents need to be there - Organic can be a sponsoring organization if
> > need be as well.
>
> Oh god, that really opens a can of worms. Let Paul fill you in on the
> FreeBSD way of doing things, such as they are.
>


Hmm, well, as Andrew knows, we recognised a need for this in FreBSD and
the result was lots of hassle (some of you may have noticed my .sig no
longer lists me as a FreeBSD core member). Be VERY carefull about heading
down this road. It means incorporating the project, i.e. setting up a
business that has a board of directors, has to submit taxes and so forth.

The advantages are that there is a legal body that can hold the copyright of
the code, hold a trademark etc. You can also take contributions of finance
or hardware for the project but the people who volunteer to be directors
have to deal with the administrative overhead of running a business and
that may not be acceptable to everyone.

There's also the question of incorporation costs. Also, be damn sure you
set up the company as a proper not-for-profit organisation or other
project members will not be too happy about certain individuals running
a profitable company off the back of the project even if it is with the
best of intentions.

To be honest, there's not a lot to gain at this stage for Apache. I'm
not sure Apache can be trademarked, someone might like to check. Holding
a trademark is about the only reason I can think of for this project
to incorporate since it doesn't require financing at this stage and there's
no particular reason for some independant entity to hold the copyright of
the code since it's fine for the author to hold the copyright as long as
it's licensed in a manner that means it can be freely used by the project.

As I mentioned before, the project doesn't have to be a legal entity
in order to be attributed or referred to as a project or whatever.
It's only an issue if you end up in some legal situation that
requires clear ownership. I explained the reason for this to Rob
H. if he still has that message maybe he could post it. It basically
comes down to there being a clearly identifiable individual for
the lawyer to deal with should it ever be necessary. If files are
copyrighted by the author then it's clear cut, if they're copyrighted
by some other body then it has to exist in some formal sense and
have clear representation (such as a major shareholder).

--
Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)

> I think Paul has made some excellent points about the license, and
> probably has more experience with this than anyone else on the team. He
> knows where our heads are in terms of how we want this server to be used
> abd the restrictions we want... if he were to submit a patch on the
> license I would probably +1 it. This should be resolved before a +1. I
> fully support keeping a mention to NCSA and Rob McCool in as well.

Sound

> As to the legality of the name "Apache Group" - whatever minimal action
> can be taken to secure that name, perhaps even trademark it, let's do
> it. I'll probably be the one paying $50/year to get the domain name
> anyways, so I'm willing to be one of the "names" on whatever legal
> documents need to be there - Organic can be a sponsoring organization if
> need be as well.

Oh god, that really opens a can of worms. Let Paul fill you in on the
FreeBSD way of doing things, such as they are.

> Brian

Yes thanks, I *can* spell paranoia.

Ay.