Mailing List Archive: New license

New license

Sep 15, 1995, 9:14 AM

Post #1 of 8 (592 views)

What do people think of this.

/*
* Copyright (c) 1995
* Someone or other. 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.
* 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 contributed to the Apache HTTPD server
* project.
* 4. The name of the contributors may not be used to endorse or promote
* products derived from this software without specific prior written
* permission.
* 5. Redistributions of any form whatsover must retain the following
* acknowledgement:
* This product includes software contributed to the Apache HTTPD server
* project.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRIBUTORS ``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 THE CONTRIBUTORS 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 can't actually do this now that I think about it. What's going to have to
happen is that the person who wrote the code in the first place will need to
submit a patch to those files that they consider theirs that replaces the
current license with this one, with their name put into the copyright line.

I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
go into the public domain with it, or Rob McCool steps forward and
claims copyright on the bits he wrote, or someone claims them as
derivative works and places a copyright on it.

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

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

sanders at bsdi

Sep 15, 1995, 2:09 PM

Post #2 of 8 (593 views)

Permalink

Paul Richards writes:
> I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> go into the public domain with it,
Why is that? If you put the Apache copyright on it then it's
copyrighted. The fact that there is a varient in the public domain
doesn't invalidate the copyright on the published work that is
claiming a copyright (I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is so).

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

efrank at ncsa

Sep 15, 1995, 2:47 PM

Post #3 of 8 (596 views)

Permalink

> * 4. The name of the contributors may not be used to endorse or promote
^ names ?
> * products derived from this software without specific prior written
> * permission.
<snip>
> I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> go into the public domain with it, or Rob McCool steps forward and
> claims copyright on the bits he wrote, or someone claims them as
> derivative works and places a copyright on it.
>
>
> --
> Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
> Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk
> Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)
>

Rob can't claim copyright on it because
1. He was paid by the Univ. of IL to produce the code, so
if anyone owns the copyright, it's the U of I
board of trustees. (I think it falls under the
general employment contract.)

2. U of I granted it to the public domain. I couldn't find
the 1.3 copyright, but here's the relevant portions
of the 1.4 copyright with modifications for Apache.

Portions developed at the National Center for Supercomputing
Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
This code is based on NCSA HTTPd 1.3 by Rob McCool.

This code is in the public domain. Specifically, we give to the public
domain all rights for future licensing of the source code, all resale
rights, and all publishing rights.

The last three lines are only if you wish the code to remain
public domain. Feel free to leave them out.

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

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

paul at netcraft

Sep 15, 1995, 5:54 PM

Post #4 of 8 (590 views)

Permalink

In reply to Tony Sanders who said
>
> Paul Richards writes:
> > I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> > clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> > code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> > go into the public domain with it,
> Why is that? If you put the Apache copyright on it then it's
> copyrighted. The fact that there is a varient in the public domain
> doesn't invalidate the copyright on the published work that is
> claiming a copyright (I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is so).
>
There is a difference between a copyright and a license. I can't change
a copyright, in fact no-one can. The author has the copyright.
(Beth is correct in that if you are working for someone then the person
paying for your time owns the copyright, in most cases). I can't put a
license on someone else's code unless it's a case of my adding a license
for a derivative work, but even in that case the original code isn't
covered by the new license.

There's no such thing as an Apache copyright. We're trying to agree on an
Apache license which authors may use to license their code if they so wish.

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

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

paul at netcraft

Sep 15, 1995, 6:01 PM

Post #5 of 8 (592 views)

Permalink

In reply to Beth Frank who said
>
> Rob can't claim copyright on it because
> 1. He was paid by the Univ. of IL to produce the code, so
> if anyone owns the copyright, it's the U of I
> board of trustees. (I think it falls under the
> general employment contract.)

This is true.

>
> 2. U of I granted it to the public domain. I couldn't find
> the 1.3 copyright, but here's the relevant portions
> of the 1.4 copyright with modifications for Apache.
>
> Portions developed at the National Center for Supercomputing
> Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
> This code is based on NCSA HTTPd 1.3 by Rob McCool.
>
> This code is in the public domain. Specifically, we give to the public
> domain all rights for future licensing of the source code, all resale
> rights, and all publishing rights.
>

I believe the code can be copyrighted as a derivative work if
changes are made to it and since the original sources are in the
public domain anyone who makes these changes can copyright it. I
suggested Rob because he's the one who wrote the stuff in the first
place. As far as Apache is concerned,for there to be a more
restrictive license someone has to hold the copyright and Rob seemed
a reasonable person to do so given that he wrote it :-)

I have to say again that I am not a lawyer and some of this is
getting very technical, a lot of theses issues have been dealt with
previously in FreeBSD but public domain code is not something I'm
familiar with and if someone is truly concerned about this they
should discuss it with a lawyer. If Beth has access to legal advice
easily I'd be interested in having this stuff checked out.

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

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

sanders at bsdi

Sep 17, 1995, 7:27 PM

Post #6 of 8 (592 views)

Permalink

Paul Richards writes:
> In reply to Tony Sanders who said
> >
> > Paul Richards writes:
> > > I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> > > clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> > > code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> > > go into the public domain with it,
> > Why is that? If you put the Apache copyright on it then it's
> > copyrighted. The fact that there is a varient in the public domain
> > doesn't invalidate the copyright on the published work that is
> > claiming a copyright (I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is so).
> >
> There is a difference between a copyright and a license. I can't change
> a copyright, in fact no-one can. The author has the copyright.
> (Beth is correct in that if you are working for someone then the person
> paying for your time owns the copyright, in most cases). I can't put a
> license on someone else's code unless it's a case of my adding a license
> for a derivative work, but even in that case the original code isn't
> covered by the new license.
>
> There's no such thing as an Apache copyright. We're trying to agree on an
> Apache license which authors may use to license their code if they so wish.

I think you missed my point. You said "For the NCSA code, either
it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches go into the public
domain with it". And I am saying that this is wrong, if you slap
a copyright on the NCSA code and publish it then you own the copyright
*on the copy you publish* and any modifications to the original.

My major point being, the Apache patches do not fall into the public
domain unless the author explicitly places them in the public
domain. Therefore, there is no problem with placing whatever
copyright and license you want on the NCSA source files (though
it would only make sense to do this on files with modifications).

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

paul at netcraft

Sep 18, 1995, 6:14 AM

Post #7 of 8 (593 views)

Permalink

In reply to Tony Sanders who said
>
> > > Paul Richards writes:
> > > > I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> > > > clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> > > > code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> > > > go into the public domain with it,
> > > Why is that? If you put the Apache copyright on it then it's
> > > copyrighted. The fact that there is a varient in the public domain
> > > doesn't invalidate the copyright on the published work that is
> > > claiming a copyright (I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is so).
> >
> > There's no such thing as an Apache copyright. We're trying to agree on an
> > Apache license which authors may use to license their code if they so wish.
>
> I think you missed my point. You said "For the NCSA code, either
> it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches go into the public
> domain with it". And I am saying that this is wrong, if you slap
> a copyright on the NCSA code and publish it then you own the copyright
> *on the copy you publish* and any modifications to the original.
>
> My major point being, the Apache patches do not fall into the public
> domain unless the author explicitly places them in the public
> domain. Therefore, there is no problem with placing whatever
> copyright and license you want on the NCSA source files (though
> it would only make sense to do this on files with modifications).

Hang on, first you've been rather selective in quoting me, you've only quoted
the first clause of the "either", the second clause said something like
"or someone sticks their copyright on it and then we can use the Apache
license". You're original reply talked about an Apache copyright, you can't
do that. I agree about copyrighting public domain code, you should re-read
my previous mail on this subject.

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

Re: New license [ In reply to ]

sanders at bsdi

Sep 18, 1995, 10:18 AM

Post #8 of 8 (591 views)

Permalink

Paul Richards writes:
> In reply to Tony Sanders who said
> > I think you missed my point. You said "For the NCSA code, either
...
> Hang on, first you've been rather selective in quoting me, you've only quoted
> the first clause of the "either", the second clause said something like
> "or someone sticks their copyright on it and then we can use the Apache
> license". You're original reply talked about an Apache copyright, you can't
> do that. I agree about copyrighting public domain code, you should re-read
> my previous mail on this subject.

I did misread your original post which read:

> I'm not going to change the license and copyright on code that
> clearly isn't mine and I've got no idea who did what. For the NCSA
> code, either it stays in the public domain and any Apache patches
> go into the public domain with it, or Rob McCool steps forward and
> claims copyright on the bits he wrote, or someone claims them as
> derivative works and places a copyright on it.

I missed case #3 which is what I was talking about, that someone
(anyone who publishes the works) can claim copyright on it.

My use of "Apache copyright" means whatever copyright we decide to
use for the Apache distribution (either individual copyrights or
whatever) and the Apache license. Which I often call a copylicense.