Mailing List Archive: LICENSE

LICENSE

Sep 20, 1995, 7:21 PM

Post #1 of 13 (1451 views)

Can we get a quick vote on the following license which Paul
supplied us. I would like to provide the folks at NeXT with
a current version of our license ASAP. If we can get a quick
vote, I'll make the patch to get this in our next release.

As for which files to apply this to...I think that it needs
to be applied to every file in the distribution. I don't see
that there is a problem with this. We are not trying to take
anything from anyone with this. Comments. I know that there
was a suggestion to add mention of the NCSA contribution.
Any suggestions as to where?

/*
* Copyright (c) 1995
* Someone or other.
* Apache HTTP Server Project, 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 HTTP 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 HTTP 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.
*
*/

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

fielding at beach

Sep 20, 1995, 9:31 PM

Post #2 of 13 (1451 views)

Permalink

Here is my opinion. Whether or not the copyright is attributed by
name to a living individual or legal entity is absolutely irrelevant
because we have no intention (and no capacity) for defending the
copyright. In fact, we are better off assigning it to a non-entity like
"the Apache Group", because then we can create that entity at a later
date if we so wish (and yes, that is legal). The sole purpose of our
copyright is to prevent people from referring to it as something other
than Apache, which is what the license accomplishes. No other purpose
(such as making commercial entities warm-and-fuzzy about including
our code) can be accomplished without making "the Apache Group" a
legal entity.

Making the Apache Group a legal entity by UK law is fine by me -- any
legitimate copyright in the UK is a legitimate copyright in the US
until it is contested and revoked in the US.

Someone mentioned trademark. Forget it. Unlike copyright, trademarks
*must* be defended. Besides, I hate people who trademark other people's
real names, including the name Apache.

Therefore, I find the existing license/copyright statement more
accurate and better reflective of our goals than is the one that
Paul came up with. However, except for the phrase "contributed to the
Apache HTTP server project", I do like the point-by-point statement
of what redistributions are allowed, and think that the existing
license should be reformulated accordingly.

....Roy Fielding

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

paul at netcraft

Sep 21, 1995, 7:16 AM

Post #3 of 13 (1447 views)

Permalink

In reply to Roy Fielding who said
>
> Here is my opinion. Whether or not the copyright is attributed by
> name to a living individual or legal entity is absolutely irrelevant
> because we have no intention (and no capacity) for defending the
> copyright. In fact, we are better off assigning it to a non-entity like
> "the Apache Group", because then we can create that entity at a later
> date if we so wish (and yes, that is legal). The sole purpose of our
> copyright is to prevent people from referring to it as something other
> than Apache, which is what the license accomplishes. No other purpose

No entirely. You also need a copyright to be able to license the code.
NeXT will not pick up a project that isn't correctly licensed, in the
same way that WC won't include Apache on their cdrom, which was the
original reason I raised this issue. It's not just a question of
whether you'll ever want to defend it, to companies it's a question
of whether they are in the clear.

> (such as making commercial entities warm-and-fuzzy about including
> our code) can be accomplished without making "the Apache Group" a
> legal entity.

That's not true. Plenty of people use FreeBSD commercially. The
copyright and licensing is very clear.

>
> Making the Apache Group a legal entity by UK law is fine by me -- any
> legitimate copyright in the UK is a legitimate copyright in the US
> until it is contested and revoked in the US.
>
> Someone mentioned trademark. Forget it. Unlike copyright, trademarks
> *must* be defended. Besides, I hate people who trademark other people's
> real names, including the name Apache.

I agree that Apache is unlikely to be acceptable as a trademark.

>
> Therefore, I find the existing license/copyright statement more
> accurate and better reflective of our goals than is the one that
> Paul came up with. However, except for the phrase "contributed to the

Well, I didn't come up with it, it's the Berkeley license.
Unless you're a lawyer you should not write licenses.

> Apache HTTP server project", I do like the point-by-point statement
> of what redistributions are allowed, and think that the existing
> license should be reformulated accordingly.

What bits of the original do you think are important then? I'm not
going to have anything to do with some hand crafted license, this is
a job for a lawyer.

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

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

paul at netcraft

Sep 21, 1995, 7:19 AM

Post #4 of 13 (1447 views)

Permalink

In reply to Randy Terbush who said
>
> /*
> * Copyright (c) 1995
> * Someone or other. =
>
> * Apache HTTP Server Project, All rights reserved.

You *CAN'T* do this.

I'm not going to pursue this any further. I suggest you contact
a lawyer, I'm sure somebody could get a quick comment from
someone where they work who is qualified to deal with licensing.

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

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

randy at zyzzyva

Sep 21, 1995, 10:24 AM

Post #5 of 13 (1445 views)

Permalink

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

randy at zyzzyva

Sep 21, 1995, 11:33 AM

Post #6 of 13 (1448 views)

Permalink

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

hartill at ooo

Sep 21, 1995, 11:43 AM

Post #7 of 13 (1449 views)

Permalink

> I fall somewhere in between Roy and Paul on this.

I do too now.

I suppose the ultimate question is "what are we trying to achieve ?"

We're not selling anything, so the the worst that can happen is that
someone starts distributing Apache under some other name, for
money or not.
If the license says "please don't", but people do, then we're in no
position to start legal actions. Moreover, we'd probably have more
success and satisfaction by just exposing blatent rip-offs of our
work in public forums.

So, I have no problem with saying the code is copyright of the Apache
Group, even if that has no legal value.

> I don't think that lack of Incorporation should keep us from
> adding a more clear, concise license to the code.
>
> I'm voting +1 for the version I mailed to the list.

+1 from me too.

Let's drop this license discussion ASAP and get on with real work.

BTW, any chance of getting the NeXT people to pay the expenses that
Brian mentioned the other day ?.. it's peanuts to them and will show
a sign of good-will.

rob

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

fielding at beach

Sep 21, 1995, 12:37 PM

Post #8 of 13 (1444 views)

Permalink

>BTW, any chance of getting the NeXT people to pay the expenses that
>Brian mentioned the other day ?.. it's peanuts to them and will show
>a sign of good-will.

Yes! I had the exact same thought while riding the elevator down
for another can of Dr. Pepper (it's been a looong week). Maybe
Cliff or Brian (when he gets back) can wander over and ask them
for help in setting up a non-profit organization -- it's tax-deductible
and incredibly good PR.

......Roy

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

ben at gonzo

Sep 21, 1995, 2:01 PM

Post #9 of 13 (1446 views)

Permalink

> Remind me what that was again....
>
> BTW - The issue with NeXT is the fuzziness of the existing
> license.
>

Perhaps NeXT would like to get their legal types to write a license that works.

--
Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472
and Technical Director Email: ben@algroup.co.uk (preferred)
A.L. Digital Ltd, benl@fear.demon.co.uk (backup)
London, England.

[.Note for the paranoid: "fear" as in "Fear and Loathing
in Las Vegas", "demon" as in Demon Internet Services, a
commercial Internet access provider.]

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

hartill at ooo

Sep 21, 1995, 2:13 PM

Post #10 of 13 (1451 views)

Permalink

> > BTW, any chance of getting the NeXT people to pay the expenses that
> > Brian mentioned the other day ?.. it's peanuts to them and will show
> > a sign of good-will.
>
> Remind me what that was again....

Brian mentioned that it's going to cost ~$100 a year to keep the
name, or something along those lines. Even though Organic do get
big benefits from Apache, I see no reason why they should subsidise
the project (even though they do anyway with computing resources), when
there are big name companies ready to grab Apache for free... it doesn't
hurt to ask.

rob

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

randy at zyzzyva

Sep 21, 1995, 2:53 PM

Post #11 of 13 (1444 views)

Permalink

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

efrank at ncsa

Sep 21, 1995, 3:00 PM

Post #12 of 13 (1447 views)

Permalink

Paul Richards said:
> this is
> a job for a lawyer.

I'm running some questions by legal here at the University,
I'll let you know what they say.

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

Re: LICENSE [ In reply to ]

brian at organic

Oct 17, 1995, 11:28 PM

Post #13 of 13 (1449 views)

Permalink

On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Roy Fielding wrote:
> >BTW, any chance of getting the NeXT people to pay the expenses that
> >Brian mentioned the other day ?.. it's peanuts to them and will show
> >a sign of good-will.
>
> Yes! I had the exact same thought while riding the elevator down
> for another can of Dr. Pepper (it's been a looong week). Maybe
> Cliff or Brian (when he gets back) can wander over and ask them
> for help in setting up a non-profit organization -- it's tax-deductible
> and incredibly good PR.

(following up on old email)

I've seen a couple other companies express interest in helping fund the
project, if only to ensure that it remains a stable and featureful
server. My response has generally been that companies that want to
dedicate resources should dedicate engineering time to the apache
developers' list instead.

The "expenses" related to maintaining the Apache list are minimal - the
$50/year associated with the domain name, the bandwidth and CPU
associated with distributing this list and the server itself, are about
it. That's not even worth itemizing. The only thing I'd like to have
that we don't right now is some sort of cross-platform testing
suite/hardware setup, so patches can be tested simultaneously on a bevy
of platforms and configurations... but I think we could emulate that if
we wanted and were organized enough. I also don't think, even with
donations, a programmer could be hired and paid to work 100% on Apache
code. So, I guess I really don't see the point in trying to accept money
when we don't have a coherent use to put it to. Instead, companies
should be encouraged to donate engineer time and resources like just
about everyone here has.

Brian

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