Formal board meeting minutes from 2010 through present. Please Note: The board typically approves minutes from one meeting during the next board meeting, so minutes will be published roughly one month later than the scheduled date. Other corporate records are published, as is an alternate categorized view of all board meeting minutes.
After considerable debate, the ACE license has been added to "Category A". It is a BSD-style license with extra verbiage describing the ACE project's history; no concerns have been voiced that the extra verbiage materially changes the meaning of the license. An earlier recommendation resolving a complex licensing issue with the Incubator podling MADlib was reaffirmed.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed Jim Jagielski to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation of Jim Jagielski from the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, Jim Jagielski has recommended Marvin Humphrey as the successor to the post; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Jim Jagielski is relieved and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Marvin Humphrey be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed. Special Order 7E, Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
Some discussions regarding whether or not a project can depend on a codebase with a non-OSI/FSF approved license currently not in the Cat-A classification. My opinion is that we want our software to be used and consumed with as little fuss and muss as possible, and a dependency on a non-OSI approved license is a detriment to that philosophy. Also, it implies that the ASF is in the business of determining what is, and is not, OSD compliant. My point in that regard is that that is NOT the ASF's job; it is clearly one of the key functions of OSI, and always has been. This is somewhat of a "hard-line" approach, and the board should be aware of this. It appears that this is not a popular point-of-view and that others disagree. I cannot in good conscious agree with a decision and an action in which we, basically, become authorities on what does and what does not comply with the OSD. As such, I tender my resignation and ask the board to assign a replacement at this meeting.
Our reclassification of the JSON License to CatX received quite a bit of external notice, from entries on LWN to Richard Fontana's "7 notable legal developments" article. Nothing requiring board attention at this time. 1. https://opensource.com/article/17/1/yearbook-7-notable-legal-developments-2016
Clarification and decision on JSON License, with mandate provided to projects regarding usage of said artifacts. No other issues requiring board attention.
During the last month, 2 items of note were discussed and resolved. First was the categorization of the JSON "Don't Be Evil" license and the other was related to the NetBeans Incubation Proposal. Regarding the former, it was decided that the JSON license, not, by definition, being an "open source license" (since it is not approved by OSI) is, in fact, CatX. Regarding the latter, the difference between hard and soft depedencies were further clarified. No issues requiring board attention.
Nothing requiring board attention at this time.
Jim confirms that he plans to continue on in the Legal Affairs role.
Kudos to Henri Yandell for working towards clearing out the Legal JIRA issues. Some clarifications regarding SGAs, CCLAs and iCLAS but otherwise nothing of further significance to report. Nothing requiring board attention at this time.
Nothing requiring board attention at this time.
There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the usage of Github repos as the "official" source of ASF project codebases (source code), and the requirements, conditions, issues and concerns there-of. Speaking as the VP of Legal Affairs, I am quite happy with how this is handled via the MATT "experiment", but there is concern that this is not sufficient (ie: projects are not quite satisfied with it and would prefer the unfiltered and unencumbered full Github process) as well as the "costs" of supporting this effort as it relates to Infra- structure resources. We have also been made aware of an external patent troll case which is related to one of our projects; The PMC has been contacted but, as of this date, no response has been forth-coming. I plan to bug them again this week. At present there are no issues requiring board attention.
Some discussions regarding license compatibility, specifically related to OpenSSL dependency, and the official release process. No issues requiring board attention.
Nothing to report this month.
JIRA issues continue to be addressed with support from the entire team. I have had some emails related to questions about our iCLAs and CCLAs regarding clarification of intent. Have had issues related to scheduling for one specific entity to address their questions and concerns. No issues requiring board attention.
Confirmed with counsel that our bylaws, and our usage and interpretation regarding majority, are correct and require no change. Specifically, Section 3.9 of the bylaws tracks the relevant Delaware law (Section 215). The bylaws take the traditional approach to voting that once you have a quorum, the action of the members is determined by a vote of the members present. For example, a "majority" is a majority of votes cast (where one can ignore Abstain, ie: "more Yes than No"). 2/3rds is handled the same way. Once we have a quorum, the action *of the quorum* is an action of the membership. There are no issues requiring board attention.
Contacted legal counsel regarding bylaws clarification and possible editing, if required; currently still in process. No issues requiring board attention at this time.
Relatively slow month. Some minor questions asked and answered on the legal lists. Currently working a just-recently-discovered license non- compliance issue related to a fork of one of our projects. Our pro-bono counsel has been contacted regarding review of our bylaws, and proposed changes (if necessary) to clarify how to apply "two-thirds majority" when counting votes. As a reminder, currently we use the 'two thirds of cast votes' majority interpretation.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following contributor be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Marvin Humphrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special Order 7B, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
As noted in last month's report, the official ASF release policy was ratified and published, and can be found at: https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html Thanks to all who helped. On a non-legal list, someone asked about the possibility of submitting a modified SGA. They were asked to refer the question to the legal lists but, as of this writing, I have not seen the query. There are no items requiring board attention.
A busy month for me personally, which has affected the timing of some Legal Affairs items. Of primary importance is that I am letting the board know that post-meeting, my plan is to officially accept the draft release policy (http://www.apache.org/dev/release-draft.html). I also anticipate increased legal activity around the proposed version control policy as well. We received a request for immediate takedown of an email message on one of the Tomcat mailing lists; it was not approved since it does not fall within the exceptional circumstances criteria in: http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html We also received another subpoena this month, this one directed to Ross and related to "Data Engine Technologies LLC vs IBM" (6:13-cv-00859-LED). A copy of the above was provided to Ross. I am awaiting direction from Ross on how he wishes to respond.
A formal ASF Release Policy has been drafted and it is in the process of being reviewed. My expectation is to make it official within a month's timeframe. Many thanks to Marvin Humphrey for his work in this effort. JIRA tickets continue to be closed. I will be working with our legal counsel regarding the proposed Bylaws update regarding the 2/3rds majority question. No issues requiring board attention.
A formal ASF Release Policy has been drafted; it is in the process of being reviewed. In addition, clarification on the ASF's non-release licensing policy has also been discussed and clarified on the legal-discuss@ mailing list. JIRA tickets continue to be closed. Our legal council was engaged to help us with drafting a set of emails; the pertinent matter has since been closed. No issues requiring board attention.
Will provide a verbal report.
Jim provided a verbal report.
Open JIRA count is down significantly, due in a large part to the efforts of Henri Yandell.
Special order 7G and the Discussion Items will cover actions being taken to restore order to the legal discuss mailing list.
Nothing requiring board attention.
An active month, as measured by mailing list and JIRA activity, but nothing that requires board attention or action at this time.
JIRA issues continue to be tracked and closed as appropriate; special thanks goes to Henri Yandell. Some discussions but nothing requiring board attention at this time.
The ASF was subpoenaed to provide documents and testimony related to U.S. Patent No. 6,691,302. I provided URLs for our mailing list archive and our release archive and provided testimony related to our release guidelines and procedures, especially as related to Apache httpd, mod_perl and ApacheJserv. No items requiring board attention at this time.
There was some discussion regarding cleaning-up our external documentation, regarding 3rd party license capability and ensuring that people are directed to the latest official policies; This effort is in the process of being completed. JIRA-based issues are being handled as required. Nothing at this time for board action.
I presented at the Practicing Law Institute (PLI) last week during their "Open Source" training session; my topic was related to open source communities. There were also other topics regarding patents, ethics, etc that were useful and interesting. Nothing at this time for board action.
A few questions regarding usage of the Apache iCLA and external licenses were asked and answered. I will be speaking at the PLI Open Source and Free Software 2014 event in San Francisco on Dec. 10th. Discussions regarding the TCK issues have been rebooted. No issues requiring board attention or action at this time.
A relatively typical month with no issues or actions required by the board. No progress on the TCK issue.
A relatively typical month with no issues or actions required by the board. One item of note was discussed during the last 4 weeks. It was the recurring thread regarding modifying the CLAs for cases where there is no copyright (the typical example is code from/by US Federal Government employees). It was explained that (1) this has already been addressed, both by the ASF and several government agencies that such modification is not required and (2) regardless of whether copyright exists within the US or not, it doesn't affect its existence outside of the US, and the CLAs are designed to be valid in the larger, world-wide arena. This should likely become a FAQ (if it isn't already).
A relatively typical month with no issues or actions required by the board. Two issues of note have popped up during the last few weeks, and the intent is to reach consensus and closure in short order. The 1st has to do with the exclusivity requirement of the Apple App Store, and how it affects official distribution of Apache software via that vehicle. The second is a relatively recent thread regarding an individual taking ASF code and simply relicensing it, and whether that is legal or not. It has been explained that as long as the conditions of the ALv2 are followed, relicensing is allowed.
Nothing of note to report.
Most of the activity the last month has been in discussions related to the legal and ASF-wide policy aspects related to our release process. One interesting "topic" of the discussion is who "owns" the release policy; for the time being, this is still being considered a Legal Affairs discussion, at least. Due to the relatively low-turnout, quorum-wise, of last month's members meeting, there has also been discussion around the reason for a required quorum, how it is (or should be) counted, and the sections of the bylaws which could (or should) be altered to reflect any changes. At present, there are no recommendations to be provided to the board. Overall, there are no issues requiring board attention or concern.
Nothing of note to report this month. Work on TCK clarification and iCLA "compatibility" with "public domain" software and the US government are ongoing.
Due to a new pluggable transparent mechanism allowing users to store certain columns in RDBMS in an encrypted form, Apache Cayenne was required to classify themselves in order to compliant with US export regulations. Unfortunately, the ASF crypto page has been "outdated" for awhile concerning the new process; I advised them to continue with the old process but I will work on updating the page to reflect the current required (and hopefully more streamlined) process. There was a long, but useful thread regarding the iCLA and its applicability with non-copyrighted material (usually since the creator is a US government employee). The end-result is the general consensus that this is a non- issue. JIRA questions are being handled in a timely fashion. No open issues requiring board attention.
Somewhat slow but steady stream of posts with the one regarding "why is LGPL on the Not Allowed List" receiving the honor of most posts. There is nothing that requires board attention at this time
Relatively slow but steady month. No progress yet on Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) issue. Geir has offered to help regarding conversations with Oracle related to TCK access (renewals as well as new ones). We are operating under the understanding that we still can test against expired TCKs in the meantime.
The discussion regarding the suitability of Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 as a Category A license is still on hold as we await the availability of the CC General Counsel. FWIW, this issue can be seen as a continuation of, or offshoot of, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167. Mark Thomas proposed a directed question regarding the ability for ASF PMCs to continue to use, and validate against, expired TCKs. Upon reading the TCK agreement, Section 10.3 appears to explicitly allow for such continued use assuming we abide by all other conditions of the agreement, which does not appear to be an issue. I have asked for our pro-bono legal counsel to verify and comment. So far, we have not rec'd a response, so we are continuing to act based on our understanding that such continued use is OK.
The transition from Sam as VP Legal to myself is progressing smoothly. Once again, Thanks to Sam for his work in the this role the many years. There was a spirited but enlightening discussion regarding the suitable of Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 as a Category A license (as related to usability with, and capability with, the ALv2). It was agreed that the discussion had reached the end of its usefullness without further feedback or guidance by Creative Commons, as to their intents behind the license and how it relates to commercial redistribution. We are reaching out to the CC General Counsel for further information; due to her unavailability while attending a conference/seminar, I don't anticipate an update until January. FWIW, this issue can be seen as a continuation of, or offshoot of, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167. Mark Thomas proposed a directed question regarding the ability for ASF PMCs to continue to use, and validate against, expired TCKs. Upon reading the TCK agreement, Section 10.3 appears to explicitly allow for such continued use assuming we abide by all other conditions of the agreement, which does not appear to be an issue. I have asked for our pro-bono legal counsel to verify and comment.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed Sam Ruby to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation of Sam Ruby from the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, Sam Ruby has recommended Jim Jagielski as the successor to the post; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Sam Ruby is relieved and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Jim Jagielski be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed. Special Order 7B, Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
There was a request to classify CC-BY as a category A license, in support of a W3C HTML WG experiment. As no ASF projects are known to be affected by this experiment, this request was resolved as Not A Problem. In the process, the entire Third Party Licensing Policy was called into question. I thank everybody who helped resolve this. Notable other discussions: ODC-By was approved for use by VXQuery. Distribution by ASF PMCs of ASF Projects as iOS Applications is stalled by an Apple imposed requirement that precludes other distributions. After over five years as VP, Legal Affairs I have decided to step down and recommend Jim Jagielski as my replacement.
A report was expected, but not received
A report was expected, but not received
Relatively routine month, nothing requiring board attention. Thanks go out to Jim Jagielski for monitoring the lists while I was on vacation. Notable discussions: By an overwhelming vote, the Legal Affairs Committee declined to add a requirement for a copyright notice in source headers. In theory this should have unblocked the short form header discussion (LEGAL-172), but for the moment it seems to have derailed it instead. Hopefully this will restart soon. There is interest by Cordova and others to distribute code via Apple's App Store. At the moment this is waiting on somebody to do the work to find and take a first pass at analyzing what the terms and conditions would be. Clerezza wishes to allow users to use Virtuoso JDBC libraries. These libraries are made available under a GPL license with a special exception for JDBC usage. As it turns out Clerezza does not intend to distribute these libraries, so there is no concern. Apache Commons would like to distribute some sample CSV files from the US government -- files without an obvious copyright. As there is contact information provided on the website, the best approach would be to ask for clarification.
Busy month. Carry overs from last month: * Issue 144: (short version of license headers) Despite the previously approved license header not having a copyright statement, we have a single individual strongly opposed to approving any new versions unless a copyright header is included in every source file that contains a license header. A large number of people have expressed strong opposition to any requirement for copyright header to be added to every source file. Sadly, I don't see anybody changing their mind on this matter, so this will need to proceed to a vote (the first time I recall this happening since I took this position) * Issue 167 (CC-By license) Barring any additional discussion, this license will be moved from Category A to Category B. Notable new discussions: * Our previous agreements for access to various TCKs has expired, and Oracle has provided a new agreement. This new agreement is not consistent with the 2002 side-letter we received from Sun: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/sideletter.pdf This matter was referred to the SFLC, and they provided this feedback on our behalf to Oracle. Oracle has not yet responded. * I've forwarded on a review the current the ECCN process to the SFLC to see if there needs to be any updates. * The SFLC is collecting data for a response to the Teradata request made to the Hive PMC (see last month's Hive board report for details). * Whether or not it is permissible to distribute third party binaries which are made available under a license that permits distribution but has a field of use restriction, a requirement to pay attorney's fees, and a requirement to pass on restrictions. * Similar discussion over shipping in source form third party code that fixes a JavaDoc security problem, where the license limited how that source could be used. This request was withdrawn as other, better, alternatives were found. * As the Maven report indicates, the project is currently not complying with license header requirements as applied to their test data, but is working on building a plan to correct this over time. Kudos to the Maven PMC for both catching this and to committing to build a plan to bring Maven releases into compliance.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following contributor be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Chris Mattmann <email@example.com> Special Order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved with 8 votes in favor; Chris Mattman abstained.
There are two topics of interest this month: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167: During what was originally a routine evaluation of a new version of the CC-By license, some restrictions that previously went unnoticed in that license were identified. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114: During discussion of a request to reduce the size of legal boilerplate accompanying files contained in distributions of Apache products, suggestions were made to add a copyright notice. My request is that discussions regarding the latter matter be referred to the Legal Affairs committee.
Relatively quiet month. Nothing requiring board attention. Longest thread involved determining what constitutes a source release. Impetus was a desire to include third party fonts in svn. Conclusion was that these particular fonts were made available under a Category B license so that they could be made available, but were not the "preferred form for making modifications" so could not be considered source. After determining a small number of issues that need to be worked before we consider signing a new TCK license with Oracle, I had Dan Kulp introduce Aaron Williamson of the SFLC to discuss these issues with Oracle on our behalf.
Daniel relayed that the agreement expired last year. Update: we got Oracle to create a new agreement and we passed this off to our lawyers, and we identified 5 issues. At this point it is in the lawyers hands. Hopefully by the June board meeting, we will have more information. Action Dan to forward on email to Roy
Activity is up this month. Nothing requiring board attention. Two highlights: * Some general and some specific discussion on takedown notices. No policy changes have been made to date. * Review of the TCK contract is proceeding slowly. We likely will be passing the comments received past the SFLC and back to Oracle this month.
Takedown requests per DMCA should be sent to VP, Legal Affairs. More discussion on legal internal. Technically the TCK contract has expired but neither side is interested in abandoning the contract.
A report was expected, but not received
Extremely quiet month. Only discussion of note is once best summarized by Roy's statement: "Obey the license and follow the golden rule". Upcoming: I plan to spend some time looking into the JCP TCK issues.
List traffic is up, but remains constructive. Key topics include license headers, not allowing modification of our grant agreements, and avoiding adoption or use of Category X licenses in Apache code. Export requirements is not resolved; Santuario and Wookie accepted the recommendation to submit a notification, now Subversion has questions. I'll keep pinging the SFLC.
Nothing requiring board attention. Notable events this month: A PMC was notified of an alleged ADA violation - the PMC in question seems to be pursuing this appropriately. Wookie continues to wait for a potential change to the ASF policy regarding security notifications. This hasn't happened, and I don't recommend that they wait for something that may not happen. See comment on this month's Wookie report. Also: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-148 Trying to find a way forward with Mark Thomas and Daniel Kulp regarding TCKs. Nothing to report just yet.
A fairly quiet month -- both in terms of the number of threads and the length/"temperature" of each -- nothing to concern the board. Most topics concern license compatibility questions. Aaron Williamson of the SFLC indicated that he will try to get a preliminary answer to the crypto question by the end of the month. I've started to work again with Daniel Kulp and Mark Thomas regarding the TCK issue. One way or another we should try to wrap this up early next year.
No report was submitted.
No report was submitted.
AI: Sam Ruby to pursue a report for Legal Affairs
No report was submitted.
Busier than previous months. Nothing major to report. The biggest topic is how to allow GPL and LGPL components to be used by projects.
No report was submitted.
Extremely quiet this month. Only item of interest is continuing discussion of TCKs.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following contributor be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Kevan Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special Order 7C, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
A healthy amount of discussion, both in terms of volume and demeanor, occurred this month. Notable amongst the normal backdrop of discussions concerning licenses, notices, and trademarks: * We are asking the board to add Kevan Miller to the Legal Affairs Committee, a board resolution to this affect appears later in the agenda. * Amazon US expressed an interest in entering Apache OpenOffice into their store. The SFLC is reviewing the contract that Amazon provided. * Our agreement with Oracle for access to TCKs is expiring, and a legal review has been requested.
Exceptionally quiet month, only three JIRA showed any notable activity, and no discussions meriting board attention occurred.
Once again, we have had a more normal level of activity, with the majority of discussions being anchored by a handful (more precisely: six) JIRA tickets. One notable discussion: we confirmed that if PMCs determine that a codebase has a single author and there is an ICLA in place for that work that they can allow it to be committed.
DLA Piper LLP's engagement letter has been signed and filed. It looks like we are settling quickly to a split where DLA Piper handles Trademarks affairs, which means that I likely will treat the SFLC as primary for all other legal matters. Of course, this is just the 'default', individual circumstances can influence this on a case by case basis. Discussions that the board should be aware of: Adobe's RTMP specification license (LEGAL-120). Not clear yet whether it is something we need to worry about, whether or not it amounts to a Field of Use restriction. If the latter, it appears that our intended use is not one that would be permitted. Aggregation of GPL dictionaries with Apache Open Office was approved (LEGAL-117) The Army initially determined the Apache License, version 2.0 was incompatible with the Antideficiency Act. They later determined that this was not something they needed to worry about. Multiple separate conversations about contributions that were previously made available elsewhere. Two easy cases: smallish and self contained single author code bases need nothing more than an ICLA from that contributor; established projects with multiple contributors need either a Software Grant or documentation that identifies how the accepting [P]PMC came to the conclusion that all of the contributors have been identified and that they have given their approval. Additionally, larger code bases or code bases with multiple contributors will also have to be verified as free of unacceptable dependencies. Ultimately, this may lead to a major update to the so-called "Short Form" for Intellectual Property Clearance at the Incubator. All in all, this was an active month in that there were quite a number of other threads. Overall these were largely without controversy, and no board action is required at this time.
Active month on JIRA and the mailing lists. No issues for the board. An example of the longest thread: Are license headers really mandatory in every source file? We have received an offer from DLA Piper's to represent the ASF for intellectual property and international tax matters. Their engagement letter is under final review, and should be signed shortly.
Mailing list has returned back to quieter times, with the focus being on JIRA entries. One such JIRA issue merits calling out: Legal-177: Aggregation of GPL dictionaries with Apache Open Office is likely to be approved by the time of this board meeting.
Most of the productive work of the committee continues via JIRA. One item I would specifically call to attention involves the Apache OpenOffice project shipping GPL dictionaries: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-117 There was a significant abuse of the legal-internal mailing list. That has since quieted down. Repeated abuses will not be tolerated, and will result in the individual in question being unsubscribed. Such an action will not affect any read-only access that the individual may have via the web archives, nor even their ability to post - it simply will be the case that such posts will need to be individually moderated in.
Much of the activity this month was focused on JIRA: 6 issues created, 5 issues resolved/closed, and 5 others made progress. Most of the issues deal with policy questions with respect to license compatibility: i.e., questions of the form "is it OK for an ASF project to depend on code made available under license X?" Notable discussions: ooo wishes to continue to use, maintain, and distribute GPL'ed build scripts for the time being; I've asked to see a plan to migrate to something else. If there is a credible plan, I will likely approve a time limited transition during incubation. Discussion about a user withdrawing permission to include a patch, the response to this question was to try to accommodate that request if possible.
We discussed the ASF policy of not developing, hosting, and distributing code, even build scripts, under the GPL. Further discussion on this matter is to go to the legal discuss mailing list.
Larry indicated that he will no longer serve as the ASF attorney.
Typical month with nothing that requires board attention. Most of the discussion concerns either OO.o or trademarks (or both). Notable threads: there was a request to modify the CCLA for NSA, but ultimately the NSA decided they could sign the CCLA that we have. There was also a discussion about allowing corporations to opt in to have their CCLAs listed publicly. The latter discussion seems to have died down.
Back to being a more quiet month. Longest public threads deal with the ooo podling exploring under what conditions an ICLA is necessary, and I see no issues coming out of that thread.
Largely a quiet month, with most activity related to the recent Open Office.org donation. Nothing requiring board action. Noteworthy discussions: One concerned the need for IP clearance of code previously developed elsewhere under an Apache License. We reminded them of the terms stated in the ICLA and the traditional Apache position that all contributions are voluntary. In this case, the ball is in the Maven PMC's court to determine if they wish to proceed, and if so, whether they will seek a Software Grant or some sort of exception. Thanks go out to Roy for helping in this discussion. Another concerned the categorization of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. We have yet to find consensus on a categorization. I asked for specifics as to the module in question, and have yet to hear back. Finally, there was a discussion about the confusion between Copyright assignments as some non-ASF projects require and Copyright Licenses which the ASF requires. No action has yet been taken.
Production of documents for the Oracle subpoena is proceeding. Similar status exists for Google's informal request on the same case. As discussed, we are proceeding without requiring a formal subpoena. At the present time, Aaron is waiting on some some input from Geir. We have had one violation of confidentiality where an attorney's email was forwarded to legal-internal without prior permission. I've taken steps to ensure that this does not reoccur. How to deal with confidentiality is a common theme these days. Larry Rosen met privately via teleconfererence to discuss in non-specific terms how to deal with code that remediates patent infringement concerns. Larry is also investigating the current status of the W3C Patent Advisory Group policy. We have had a request from the defendants in a TQP Development LLC vs Capital Group Companies complaint. Larry Rosen and Mark Thomas are following up. Until we have a published policy on confidentiality that handles these kinds of discussions, these discussions are generally happening off-list. Larry continues to work the OpenOffice.org trademark assignment from Oracle, with input from others. Karen Sandler has left the SFLC. Aaron Williamson and Justin Colannino will continue to support the ASF.
Busy month; major items include responding to the Oracle subpoena and receiving a software grant from Oracle for OpenOffice.org. Larry is leading discussions concerning transferring the associated trademarks. Aaron is leading the response to the subpoena. He has produced an initial set of documents and is still evaluating more, including from board-private. Whom we choose to disclose this information to beyond what we are legally required to do is up to us, and the subject of a sometimes heated debate. There are clear signs of animosity between some of the participants on legal internal, and that is inhibiting the use of the mailing list for discussions. I am taking steps to correct this. Additionally, we have gotten a similar request for information from Google. Instead of pursuing a subpoena they have simply made a request. As we were not the ones that required Oracle to issue a subpoena, we can simply provide the requested information or require Google to provide a subpoena. My recommendation is that we simply provide the information. Sadly, Larry has reported that i4i prevailed over Microsoft and the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence remains the standard of proof required to invalidate a patent. Other discussions include Travel/Medical insurance for conference attendees and how PMCs are to deal with patent claims.
The big news is that we received a subpoena from Oracle to supply documents that may relate to their ongoing litigation with Google. The SFLC has been chosen to coordinate the response to this request. An extension request has been made and granted. Next to that, the longest thread on the legal-discuss mailing list involved a law student trying to get us to provide interpretations in response to licensing questions. I'm pleased to report that everybody at the ASF responded appropriately with suggestions ranging from "get a lawyer" to "go read a book". Other threads include historical data relating to various ongoing trademark issues.
More discussion than recent months; nothing requiring board attention. Most significant (both in terms of volume of discussion and in terms of relevance) is that the ASF legal web site was updated to clarify that ASF projects may have purely optional dependencies that are not enabled by default on codebases made available under licenses such as the LGPL.
Continues to be quiet with no board level issues. Resolved an issue which allows Derby to proceed with releasing an implementation of JDBC 4.1. Some progress has been made on coming to consensus on releasing a product with optional dependencies, but it is awaiting somebody to create a suitable patch. Reviewed Subversion's discussions with WANDisco over trademark compliance. In general, trademark discussions are trending down. We continue to get the occasional random request for legal advice for projects outside of the ASF. Generally these requests are from individuals. We continue to decline to provide such advice.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following contributor be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Jennifer O'Neill This resolution was approved unanimously by roll call vote.
Another exceedingly quiet month. No issues for the board. Primary activities: * Larry continues to shepherd the Amicus Brief in Microsoft vs i4i. Karen Sandler also participated. * Legal review and approval of the efforts to resolve the Subversion/WANdisco trademark issues. * We decided to invite Jennifer O'Neill to participate in the Legal Affairs committee. See resolution 7A in the agenda. * General support in response to requests from the VP, Brand Management. * Exploration of Jenkins coming to the ASF. Feedback was universally positive. It will be up to the developers of Jenkins to decide whether or not they wish to pursue this. * Fielded miscellaneous questions, such as BSD license usage by podlings and the conditions under which a project may move externally.
Discussions even quieter than last month, mostly in support of Trademark discussions. Nothing requiring board attention. A minor revision of the Amicus Brief in support of Microsoft v. i4i re: burden of proof in invaliding trademarks is in process. Larry Rosen continues to lead this effort.
Extremely quiet month. No board level issues. Most of the effort this month went into support for the Branding and JCP VP's. We have three unrelated efforts where the owners of projects have expressed an interest in allowing projects here at the ASF based on their work, but aren't quite in a position where they can sign a CCLA. We need to work through the details. One routine Crypto Notice question was fielded by Larry. Karen supported Jim with the preparation of the EA contract. As expected, we haven't spent any of the legal budget so far this year; my position remains that it makes sense to carry this line item forward as an authorization to spend without requiring board review.
Three JIRAs created, zero closed. Mostly this has been a steady state (similar number being opened and closed), will watch to see if this is an anomaly or if we will start to accumulate a backlog. Larry and Karen fielded some trademark questions. I'm not seeing any signs that the split between Branding and Legal Affairs is causing any confusion (it had in the past). Miscellaneous discussions include JXTA/JXSE (which uses and older version of the Apache License) and Fair-use data in SVN. Much discussion regarding Harmony and the state of the JCP, one concrete outcome of that was a blog posting entitled "Read Beyond the Headers". I've not proceeded as promised on expanding the Legal Affairs committee or documenting processes, mostly due to travel and lack of time. I still intend to follow through on this. Legal Affairs approved of the signing of the agreement with Google regarding Apache Extras.
We signed onto the amicus brief to Microsoft's petition to the US Supreme Court in the Microsoft v. I4I case which was prepared by the EFF. Special thanks to Larry for bringing this to our attention and driving this issue. Based on everything I have seen, our participation has been well received. As the board has decided not to pursue establishing a General Counsel at this time, I plan to start the process of documenting the various roles and responsibilities. During this process, I will be looking to expand participation in the Legal Affairs Committee. Three JIRA issues opened, and three closed this month. Most significant, JIRA issue 80 (NTLM Inclusion) was approved. This previously had been a board action item. We've received a request from the TAC to write/review a waiver of medical liability. Larry and Sam have been participating in discussions relating to the JCP contract dispute. Nothing specific to report at this time. The Legal Affairs Committee also continues to support the work of the VP of Brand Management.
Progress is being made on addressing the two board level action items: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-80 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XALANJ-2438 Microsoft recently filed a petition for certiorari in the US Supreme Court in the Microsoft v. I4I case. Larry is pursuing additional information. The likely outcome is that we should express our support for Microsoft's petition. Mozilla has release a draft alpha of MPL 2, which is intended to be Apache License, Version 2.0 compatible. Pursuant to our discussion in the F2F board meeting, Larry has put out a call for additional attorney volunteers. None of the people identified so far have participated in legal-discuss to date, which is a bit of a concern, but nobody has been ruled out. Absent a General Counsel, we still have the potential problem of "lawyer shopping". I'm looking to identity concrete cases of problems when it occurs. None have been identified since the F2F :-) Meanwhile, we should be able to mitigate this somewhat by limiting access to multiple lawyers to the Officers that routinely would have need to access such resources. I believe that would be President; VP, Brand Management; and VP, Legal Affairs.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is a Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Board is in receipt of Henri Yandell's resignation as a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be removed from the list of Legal Affairs Committee members: Henri Yandell <email@example.com> Unanimous approval by roll call vote.
Exceptionally quiet month, with the exception of one resolution on today's agenda. Routine matters dealing with license headers, trademark due diligence, incorporating public domain code, and verifying that a specific patent is covered by our license/Jira/ICLA/CCLA processes. We reaffirmed that we will not accept custom CCLAs from corporations that are inclined to treat our agreement as a template. We have begun to discuss the subject of appointing a General Council. On the subject of Henri's resignation, he will be sorely missed. It is no secret that he was a large part of what effectively is a very small community.
Approved by general consent.
A quiet couple of months. 3 JIRA's opened, 3 closed (one new, two old). Routine questions just as JSON license, IP clearance, and trademark issues were discussed. Nothing meriting board attention. Larry has suggested that the ASF name a General Counsel, and volunteered for the task. I support both suggestions. Should we adopt the suggestion, a separate Legal Affairs VP may no longer be needed - we can either retire the position or simply name the same individual that to that role. I suggest that we take that up when we name other Executive officers.
No report this month, next month Sam will provide a report covering the two months.
More active than previous months, but still mostly quiet activity. Two new JIRA issues, 5 JIRA issues closed, one other JIRA issue worked. No issues for the board. Significant activity supporting Brand Management as it relates to Trademark Law. Division of labor between the two efforts seems clear and no conflicts to report. Some discussion on what patents would be licensed to the ASF as a result of contributions covered by ICLAs and CCLAs. No clarifications resulted from this discussion.
Even more quiet than normal. Only 1 new JIRA, only one other JIRA worked. There appears to be a number of efforts outside of the ASF to come up with a common CLA form.
Light month. Two issues closed, two others discussed, and no issues opened. Larry Rosen signed on behalf of the ASF a petition to the American Law Institute to release their "Principles of Law of Software Contracts" for free for review of the constituencies that care about it. Discussion about documenting a more fine grained organization of the Legal Affairs committee started and looks likely to peter out. Initial planning work has begun to increase trademark coordination between the ASF and Eclipse, impetus being the fact that there are unrelated projects named Apache Scout and Eclipse Scout. Everything appears cordial. Initial work has begun at the Mozilla foundation on a revision of the MPL. One goal of the revision is to make it more obviously one-way compatible (i.e., allowing Apache Licensed artifacts can be included in MPL licensed code bases). The ASF supports this goal. Yahoo! donated its Trademark registration for the Traffic Server to the ASF.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is a Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Board is in receipt of Robert Burrell Donkin's resignation as a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be removed from the list of Legal Affairs Committee members: Robert Burrell Donkin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special Order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
In contrast to last month's blitz, this month saw 3 new JIRAs created and 5 others actively worked on. We had a lengthy discussion on the advisability of reading patents. I need to work on getting the XAP incubator site clearly marked as shut down. I am recommending that the same budget that was present in the FY2009-2010 for legal expenses be present in the FY2010-2011. The amount in $2,500. Trademark discussions continue to bleed over into legal mailing lists, but this is not a problem, in fact I will suggest that it is less of a problem now that Trademarks is separately called out from PRC, and Trademarks clearly have a legal aspect. In other words, the owner is clear, and Legal plays a supporting role.
JIRA: 6 closed, 13 worked on, 0 opened; mostly during a blitz by Henri on 19 December (Thanks Henri!). Discussions of note: * Moving Copyright notices (a.k.a. dealing with an uncooperative donor) * Public Domain (primarily example code)
All activity this month fairly routine: one new JIRA opened, one closed, and progress on 5 others. Assisted the new VP, Brand Management; am monitoring one potential IP Clearance / Pedigree issue in a Incubator podling. On the latter, I'm satisfied that the PPMC is taking the appropriate steps.
Things are running smoothly, a few items that the board may wish to be aware of and/or directly participate in: 1) Working with Sonatype to determine how best enable their company to succeed while preserving the ASF's right to enforce a Trademark on the term Maven. 2) Debate on the suitability of the OWFa specification license within the ASF. At the moment, this discussion is hypothetical, as the ASF has no codebases intending to implement specifications under such licenses. This may become relevant as this license is being proposed for consideration by the W3C. 3) Early discussions on how to deal with individuals that continue to misuse our trademarks even after repeated requests. One result of this discussion can be found as resolution 7A on today's meeting agenda. 4) ASF Corporation status was renewed by Jim. 5) Richard Hall is coordinating access to the OSGi CT.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is a Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Board is in receipt of Niclas Hedhman's resignation as a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be removed from the list of Legal Affairs Committee members: Niclas Hedhman <email@example.com> Special Order 7I, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
Very uneventful month. One issue created, two discussed. Mostly dealing with topics like Artistic and CC-SA licensed materials for tutorials and test data (e.g., metal Olympics table). Additionally, the Legal PMC participated in trademark license discussions (in support of the PRC), and reviewed responses to the EU (in support of the VP, JCP). The Legal Affairs Committee is OK with WSRP4J releasing and graduating. I'd like to thank Niclas Hedhman for his positive contributions during his membership in the Legal Affairs Committee. He will be missed.
Active month (on the order of 4 dozen unique threads), but relatively free of controversy; certainly nothing requiring board attention. Most of the actionable items are occurring on JIRA, with four items created, three closed, one reopened, and forward progress on four others. Notable discussions: Licensing of the feather logo under ALv2 (on request from the PRC), the recommendation is to (continue?) to license such under the ALv2. LGPL behind an isolation layer (current position: we will allow the dependency, but not the ASF distribution of the software) Received a trademark infringement concern on one of our incubating projects, I am pursuing it with the podling in question. Progress is slow but has resumed on resolving the WebCollage and WSRP4J licensing issue.
The only issue that merits board attention is the licensing of trademarks. My understanding remains that beyond ensuring that the way we license our trademarks is legal, all policy decisions in this area are the purview of the PRC. I've tried to reinforce this a number of times, mostly unsuccessfully. Very active month, most of it centered around JIRA issues. By my count, 8 issues were opened and 7 closed; forward progress was made on 18 others. As a general rule, this is progressing without controversy; the only issues that merit highlighting as a potential for a broader review is issue 26 (LICENSE and NOTICE in SVN) and issue 34 (release voting procedures). The Legal Affairs Committee provided significant input to Geir's impending responses to various DOJ and EC requests, and intends to support Geir in every way. See the JCP report for more details. It is hard to characterize the remainder of discussions, they ranged from the relative merits of the Apache License vs [L]GPL, how to deal with non-ASF licensed code in JIRA, combining the Apache License with other licenses ranging from public domain to MPL, and IP clearance.
Sam reiterated his intent to forcibly eject trademark issues off of the legal lists.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is in receipt of William Rowe Jr's resignation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be removed as a Legal Affairs Committee member: William Rowe Jr <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special Order 7B, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
At the present time, I don't see any issues needing board attention. Exceedingly quiet month. There was a question about the autoconf license which was addressed by pointing to the resolved list. There was a discussion about the license of research papers posted on web sites, which didn't reach a conclusion. There were discussions about the Pope's position on Patents, and on the use of Apache 2.0 by University with patents (the latter was taken off-list). Jansi (non-ASF tool) is licensed under Apache License with optional dependency on LGPL, and this kicked off the predictable discussions. I continue to believe that such discussions will continue with people taking extreme positions until and unless such questions are grounded in a tangible request by a PMC (or podling), at which point I am confident that pragmatism will win. There were two legal internal discussions that did not result in any concrete actions being taken. I'd like to thank Bill Rowe for his positive contributions during his membership in the Legal Affairs Committee. He will be missed.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is in receipt of Roy Fielding's resignation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF members be added as Legal Affairs Committee members: Niclas Hedhman <email@example.com> Lawrence Rosen <firstname.lastname@example.org> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be removed as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Roy Fielding <email@example.com> Special Order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
Summary: * In general, things appear to be progressing smoothly, though I think I see the first signs of things that might end up falling through the cracks. Will continue to monitor. See items marked with a (*) * While I am quite comfortable with the split between the PRC and Legal(and Incubator, for that matter) on trademarks, the topic of trademark selection and enforcement continues to pop up. As long as nobody raises any concerns about the discussions and no decisions are reached exclusively on legal mailing lists, I'm OK with it. Details: Larry extended the time (for 6 months) in which the ASF must respond to the PTO before the SpamAssassin Trademark becomes effective. He can not proceed until the website is corrected. PHP license approved as category A. GPLv3 license identified as category X. Statements by the FSF indicating that the ASF license is "compatible" with GPLv3 was, as predicted, a cause of confusion. Pivot decided to continue with their plans to host their Flex BlazeDB demo outside of the ASF infrastructure given that that code has a dependency on GPLv3 licensed code. Henri noted some "dodgy" code in Checkstyle (specifically some Sun specific Swing code). The code is available under BSD with 'no nuclear facility' clause. (*) General discussion (without providing any legal advice) occurred in response to a question about establishing another open source non-profit. We discussed using JIRA for tracking ICLAs. It wasn't clear what benefit that provided. A general question on "reciprocity" with respect to section 5 of our license was answered. No change to the license is planned. The author of the dictionary in question agreed to provide a copy under the Apache License. Extensive discussion about improving the release process documentation. Patches expected to be forthcoming. (*) CUP Parser Generator license a.k.a. "Standard ML of New Jersey" was reviewed and thought to be Category A. (*) General discussion on what 'required notices' meant. Unsurprisingly, the answer was 'notices that are required' :-) A question about using Apache CXF in a GPL licensed codebase was answered by pointing the ASF and FSF faqs. General discussion on trademarks (IMHO, bordering on PRC's responsibility, but as no decisions were made, no harm) Lengthy discussion (without concrete results) on tagging release candidates and Java. A question about ECCN exports was answered by pointing to the web page describing our export licenses. A question about binary PDF documents in a release for Apache Stonehenge was answered. It involved README vs NOTICE and Copyright vs Trademark considerations. Developing more general education and posting it on our website would be helpful in this area. General question on the trademark-ability of greek letters. Delta airlines seem to have done so. A question on how we view the Day spec license was asked, without attracting an answer (*). It doesn't directly affect Jackrabbit, as Day has a CCLA on file. Question (motivated by VCL, but applies to a number of ASF projects) on whether or not we intend to trademark names that were in use prior to donation to the ASF. A few com.sun.* APIs seem to have found their way into effectively becoming part of standards. Notes were shared on how to deal with this. Microsoft Limited Public License was categorized as "X" as it has a field of use clause. A TM was added to the Tomcat logo. Another case that properly is something the PRC should be concerned with. When this discussion moved onto the ASF feather logo, Larry did request that this be continued at the PRC. PDFBox wishes to include some CJK fonts which are licensed in a way that does not permit modification. As it doesn't affect the ability for us to release our code under our license, this license is thought to be category B. Active discussion (incomplete) on copyright and trademark of hosting of research papers on our site. Larry dealt with a DMCA notice that was misdirected towards the ASF.
No report submitted.
Another quiet month. Nothing requiring board attention. Summary of mailing list discussions: ASF Business (topic on first line, summary of resolution on next line): Is it OK for Maven to have an optional dependency on svnkit (GPL)? - withdrawn How does one bring a JSON plugin into the ASF? - referred to http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html What's the policy on copyright headers (for Pivot) - referred to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html Shindig is considering a logo contest question, any advice? - a pointer to a related effort (Solr) was provided Is it OK to copy Sun JDK source code (GPLv2) into an ASF project? - no Do donation include trademarks (for VCL)? - ask the contributor (NCSU) to make this more explicit Is a grant required for a large contribution? - No, a ICLA/CCLA is sufficient, but if the contribution is truly large, Incubator IP clearance is required. Continuing discussion of OASIS OpenCSD XSDs... - Tuscany project is proceeding treating these artifacts as read only. External questions: Do forks of ASF projects need to publish source? - no Follow on: what does prominent notice mean? - ask a lawyer Know any good IP lawyers? (Not a follow-on) - we don't provide such recommendations.
Active month, nothing requiring board attention beyond a passing mention of staffing. Summary: internal: LGPL optional library for testing CouchDB (OK) DOM4J (BSD style license, accepted) JSR 173 license (replaced with an ALv2 equiv) Protocol Buffer License (verified as BSD) Unicode data license (ICU: OK) MSV license (category X: due to FOU) License Headers question (dealing with BSD) Question as to when CCLAs are required (QPid) OASIS license of XSDs (not separately licensed?) OLIO fragment cache license (MIT) ICLA required for student under contract? (wouldn't hurt) Use of Prolog (the language) (OK) Abstract question on documentation (need specifics) outside: Permission to reuse our CLA form itself (granted!) Question as to whether the ECCN "conveys" to commercial users (answer: exemption may not apply - consult a lawyer) General question as to whether ASF code can be sublicensed commercially (can and does) Hypothetical Discussion between Bruce Perens and Larry Rosen (over my head) Referred elsewhere: Two separate potential violation of an ASF Trademark (to PRC) Advice for book authors (to PRC) IP-clearance question (to incubator)
While traffic has picked up from last month, absolutely none of it should be of any concern to the board. Brief summary: * General questions on public domain and fair use * A question about a previously approved license (zlib/libpng) * Two questions on IP clearance, one quick and one more involved, both forwarded to the incubator * A JSR spec contained obsolete licensing terms (Geir quickly dove in) * An inquiry on trademark considerations, including the project logo and the ASF feather from committers on an ASF project working on a book. * An internal discussion on open letters. The list also attracts questions from users. While it is not something that we are set up to do (or, in fact, a service we intend to provide), it has not proven to be a problem in practice. Discussions of this nature from the past month: * Request for advice on a project desiring to use the Apache License and depend on code licensed under the GPL. * A webapp developer asked a question about the MySQL license * A developer of an application on sourceforge asked about how to structure his LICENSE file given that his project is based on an ASF project * A general question about defensive publication as a way to protect against patent trolls. * A general question on internal use of Apache projects
Sam confirmed that an open list was not a problem at this time, and noted that he is pleased with the sharing of the load; while Henri and Larry take on bigger shares than most (thanks!), nobody dominates and plenty of people contribute..
Very quiet month, nothing requiring board attention. Highlights: Naming discussion on JSecurity. Probably would not have given approval to that name in the first place, but given that the name has been in use for four years without an issue being raised, there isn't consensus on requiring a change. That being said the naming discussion was an inevitable bikeshed. Discussion of whether a given W3C license was category 'B' or 'X'. Given that the code in question was dual licensed with BSD, the question was moot. A discussion about a different W3C license and the policy of not allowing non-OSS code in SVN wandered off into nowhere as hypothetical discussions are want to do. There was a similar discussion about PDF CJK fonts, and it appears that the direction there will be to dynamically download the data vs polluting SVN. A question about dealing with the US Government was handled by Larry off-list.
Most significant thread has the unfortunate subject line of "use of proprietary binaries". I say unfortunate, as it is unduly prejudicial. The essence of the pragmatism behind "category B" is to identify artifacts whose licenses, while different than our own, don't affect the ability of us developing our code under our license. As long as the dependency is clearly marked and we are not distributing these artifacts, we should be good. Related questions such as whether such artifacts can be checked into SVN, etc. should be examined in terms of infrastructure burden and potential to increase confusion, and not excluded as a blanket matter of policy. The context for the above is optional external APIs and compliance test suites. While we would all love for these to be open, that's not a requirement. The line in the sand is whether or not usage of such affects our ability to develop our code under our license. By contrast, redistribution of PDF CJK fonts, for which the license clearly states that the "contents of this file are not altered" was greeted warmly, albeit with a separate discussion about patents. Other threads: Does working on Sun RI automatically "contaminate" developer, and preclude them from working on ASF project? Answer: not in general, though specific PMCs may have specific rules in place depending on the nature of the project. Lenya website redesign - ensuring that the contributions are under the appropriate license. Obtaining licenses for testing purposes - original question dealt with WebSphere, but wondered off to TCKs. Branding question ("AskApache") referred to PRC. Continued discussion about Google Analytics. No consensus that there is a clear issue yet. A naming question for JSecurity lead to the inevitable bikeshedding...
People are encouraged to follow up on the first issue on legal-discuss.
It would be helpful to obtain a Notice of Allowance from Robyn in order to pursue registering the SpamAssassin Trademark. Sebastian Bazley updated the mailbox drop information on CCLAs to reflect our Wells Fargo lockbox. Discussed documenting privacy policies w.r.t. Google analytics and interpreting "internal use" as our project mailing lists. Parallel discussion occurred on site-dev. Advised Facelets to preserve NOTICEs and not to modify copyright claims in files that they copy. Jira item created for documenting the process for choosing names for ASF projects. Looks promising. Once again, a discussion of making section 5 of the Apache License, Version 2.0 more explicit via mailing list messages surfaced. Thankfully, it died quickly. My feeling is that what we have works for us for now, and shouldn't be changed unless there is a specific issue. A company offered Lucene access to archived blog data. There was a discussion concerning us hosting a copy of this, but this made some people uncomfortable w.r.t. potential copyright violations. Discussed w3c's copyright-documents-19990405.html. Overall doesn't look open source friendly, but we may be open to further discussion of checkin of unmodified sources with appropriate documentation. Reviewed Oracle's proposed revised JSR301 draft license
4 JIRA requests opened, 3 closed; all related to how to deal with "one off" licenses. Continuing discussions on Google Analytics and legal options related to the JCK impasse. Otherwise, a pretty quiet month.
Things continue to run smoothly. I'm pleased with the number of active participants. An abstract question was asked about an ability to commit to a project given exposure to prior ideas from a previous employer. In general, such a situation causes us no major concerns, though the situation may vary based on the specific projects and specific employers in question. PDFBox was originally BSD licensed and obtained software grants from all of the primary authors. A question was asked regarding small contributions from people who they are no longer able contact. Given the size of the contributions in question, the original license, and the fact that reasonable efforts were made to locate such people, it was determined that this was not a concern. A FAQ was added that older versions of Apache software licensed under Apache Software License 1.0 are still licensed as such. Creative Commons Share-Alike Attribution version 3.0 license has been approved, provided the materials in question are unmodified. Previously, only the 2.5 version had been approved. A JIRA was opened on documenting release voting procedures. No owner. Larry helped resolve an issue where a company wished to rewrite our CCLA. Our policy is that we don't accept modified ICLAs or CCLAs. SyntaxHighlighter (LGPL) was approved for use on people.apache.org pages. Nobody seems to know the licensing status of BEA's StAX implementation, so most projects are simply routing around it. Larry has volunteered to register SpamAssassin trademarks. Given that the PRC and the SA PMCs are OK with this, if the board approves the expenditure, I'll tell him to proceed. David Crossley has produced a first draft of a project naming document. He's been on the list for over a year, and starting in July of this year has picked up his participation. Routine copyright/notice questions from Felix, CouchDB, JAMES and the Incubator. RSA's implementation of MD4/MD5 says one thing in their licensing headers and a quite different thing on their IETF IPR statement. I think we are covered, but we still need to settle how to document this properly. Bluesky inquired about moving away from some (unspecified) C++ Standard library implementation to STLPORT, presumably for licensing reasons. Everything I have heard to date indicates that we would be comfortable with either implementation. Google Analytics continues to be explored. Justin expressed an opinion that, while a bit stronger than I recall the board expressing, is one that I'm quite pleased and comfortable with: namely that we start from a presumption of data of this type being open to all, and work backwards from there -- making closed only what we must. A discussion has just started on the legal implications of contests involving prizes. If the prizes themselves are donated, and are substantial, we may have to consider such as targeted donations.
While comments were made on a half-dozen or so JIRA issues, none were either created or closed this month. I believe that this process is working smoothly, and does not warrant board attention. Notable discussions that occurred during this month: As reported elsewhere, Microsoft clarified their position on their Open Specification Promise. As near as I can tell, everybody feels that this completely resolves the issues surrounding the upcoming OOXML support by POI. The division of labor between the PRC, the incubator, and the Legal Affairs Committee continues to confuse people. My understanding is that the PRC is responsible for enforcing our claim to names, the incubator is responsible for IP clearance (including names), and the Legal Affairs Committee helps respond to claims made against the ASF. A GPL license question surfaced -- this started out with Xapian which is licensed under GPL v2 and confusion over what the FSF claims of "compatibility" with the Apache License means. Eventually this discussion wandered off into the territory of hypotheticals. GPL v2 remains on the ASF's restricted list (a.k.a. Category "X"). By contrast, syntax highlighter (licensed under the LGPL) was approved for the limited purposes of non-essential enhancement of online documentation. There was a brief discussion on "blanket" grants and "commit by proxy". This was resolved by citing the relevant sections of the ICLA which has explicit provisions for the enablement of submitting code on behalf of a third party. There was a brief discussion as to whether an ICLA sufficient when a person may have been exposed to ideas and alternate implementations from a previous employer. Our position is yes. Individual PMCs are welcome to set a higher bar for themselves. A permathread re-erupted: when are Apache License Headers needed? The general guidance is that they should be added whenever practical, but only where practical. There is an ongoing discussion about notice requirements when code is reused from other projects.
Jim asked if the board should request a status update regarding the 3rd party license policy. Sam indicated that this was not necessary based on the areas of consensus already are published on the web site, and the items being worked appear in JIRA. No action was taken.
Resolved issues: * Documentation about the Legal Affairs Committee has been added to the web site (primary source: board resolutions) * Cobertura reports can be included in Apache distributions * Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License Agreement v1.2 does not raise any concerns. Significant Discussions: * Permathread about policy issue about shipping LGPL jars reoccurred. again this month. * We are Revisiting whether or not there should be a JIRA checkbox concerning whether or not there should be a "Grant license to the ASF" checkbox and what the default should be. Other: * Received another inquiry from the owners of the Abator trademark.
A brief discussion was had concerning ASF committers and members participating as Expert Witnesses. This is a decision that only the individual in question can make for themselves, but if there is any concern that there might involve an ASF vulnerability, then the individual is requested to include the ASF's legal VP and counsel in the discussion.
Another month with little controversy. At this point /legal/resolved.html contains the bulk of the content from the draft 3party text upon which there is wide consensus. This includes the discussion of category 'A', 'B', and 'X' licenses. Henri has a real talent for proposing text upon which people can find common ground. The wiki that was previously set up at my request is not seeing much use. Relevant documents that were previously there (as well as on people.apache.org home directories) have been migrated to the website proper. A JIRA area has been established for tracking legal issues, and this has resulted in a lot of activity and issues moving to closure. Two major areas of future focus: Nearer term is a sincere desire in a number of areas to be more proactive about obtaining suitable licenses for potential patents. This has caused problems as patent licensing issues are not as clear cut as copyright or trademark issues. I'm comfortable having the Legal Affairs Committee making the call that, for example, WSRP4J and POI pose acceptable risks for the foundation, and downstream help PMCs mitigate those risks should these assessments prove to be unfounded. Longer term, clarifying and documenting the various notice requirements (NOTICE, LICENSE, README) needs attention.
A fairly quiet month. The iBATOR trademark infringement issue seems to have been resolved satisfactorily. Glassfish has now corrected the license issue with prior versions of their product (as of the last board report, they had only addressed the latest version). Andy Oliver is continuing to work quietly with myself and ASF council to see if we can identify and resolve his concerns with the Microsoft funding of Sourcesense to implement OOXML. WSRP4J appears to be in a roughly analogous place. There are no known actively enforced patents by either IBM or WebCollege that apply to this code, but a desire to preemptively and proactively get a license agreement. As indicated in the incubator report, nobody on the Legal Affairs Committee has expressed any concern with the changes proposed by Roy for the procedures for IP Clearance. Questions on compatibility with various licenses continue to pop up from time to time. No questions on third party licensing issues arose during the past month.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Craig Russell <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special order 7A, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote of the directors present.
Sun has restored Apache License headers to the Jasper code with Glassfish V3. Craig Russell was instrumental in making this happen. I feel this issue is now closed. In related news, the Legal Affairs Commitee voted to add Craig to the committee, and it appears as resolution 7A on today's agenda. From time to time, I see a number of smaller items that come up on the legal mailing lists go unaddressed. I intend to continue to pursue expanding the Legal Affairs Committee membership. We received more information on the trademark concern, and this has resulted in Apache iBATIS beginning the process of renaming Apache iBATIS Abator to Apache iBATIS iBATOR. The Legal Affairs committee participated in a number of JCP and Harmony related discussions. This is already adequately covered by the report from the VP of JCP. The third party licensing policy continues to remain a draft and despite not being made into a policy, is still useful as a set of guidelines and hasn't prevented us from making meaningful progress on actual requests from podlings and PMCs, such as the request as to how Buildr is to treat dependencies covered under the Ruby license. There has been discussion regarding WSRP with respect to patents. While it isn't clear that there is a patent that reads on WSRP, but a member of the portals PMC sent a request inquiring as to how certain patents would be licensed by IBM and Web Collage. Upon review, the consensus seems to be that the agreement presented to us by Web Collage is not sufficient for our needs. POI has a situation where a committer has stated his intent to revert commits which were made several months ago based on a feeling that there may be patents which read on the code in question. Portions of the legal site are in flux, and meta discussion as to when and who can update the site occur from time to time. This is normal and healthy.
The third party draft has been a significant distraction. This document serves a quite useful purpose -- as a guide. Shortly after this month's board meeting, I plan to publish a short document describing how it is useful as a guide and identifying a few places where hard distinctions it attempts to make are overreaching and will not (yet) be enforced. Meanwhile, focus will return to concrete, tangible, and near-term decisions. The first two of which which will be resolved this week deal with code licensed for use "in the creation of products supporting the Unicode Standard" and an optional LGPL "deployer" distributed in source form. Other activities: * WSRP4J is looking into potential patent claims * Ongoing crypto notice work * Discussion on maintenance of the year on copyright notices * Question as to whether we would allow projects to dual license (answer: no) * Discussion of various open specification pledges, particularly Microsoft's * OSGI bundle requirements will require ServiceMix to create, maintain, and distribute a small amount of CDDL licensed descriptions. * Continuing confusion over the split between the NOTICE and LICENSE files, this needs to be dealt with by the Legal Affairs Committee * Fielded a question from a non-profit that wanted to base their license off of ours. * A growing list of open legal questions, mostly related to third party licensing. * Glassfish still hasn't restored the Apache License headers to Jasper files, despite some encouraging words that they were going to. Yet another letter was sent to Simon Phipps and the legal contact at Sun he provided me with.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be added as a Legal Affairs Committee member: Henri Yandell <email@example.com> Special order 7D, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote.
Last month, I mentioned a potential trademark infringment issue that was brought to our attention. I contacted the individual requesting more information, and have not heard back. Until I hear more, I have no plans of pursing this further. Sun continues to ignore our request that the licence headers be restored on the portions of Glassfish. I have sent a third request (the first was in September) that Sun follow the FSF's recommendations on this matter. If Sun continues to drag their feed on this matter, it is time to explore other options to get Sun to comply. While this work has been ongoing for some time, this month there has been a marked uptick in the export classification activities and general awareness of these ECCN related issues. Most of the efforts of this month were on trying to refine the ASF's Third Party Licensing policy, primarily by attempting to create an informal poll. I seeded this with three hypothetical positions, and mostly people were divided into two camps. One camp didn't see much of a dividing line between the first two positions, but clearly saw position three as distinct and reacted negatively towards it. The other saw little difference between positions two and three, but reacted equally negatively to position 1 as the first camp did to position 3. A bare minimum that I believe that we can achieve ready consensus on is a policy that all sofware developed at the ASF from here on is to be licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and that we will take no actions that limit our ability to distribute our software under this license. Roy has indicated that this may not have been the policy in the distant past, but as near as I can tell, it has been the way that we have been operating for quite some time now, hence the conclusion that this should be able to readily gain consensus. One world view is that that bare minimum is not enough. One can argue that it makes little sense if our software is licensed under a pragmatic license if that sofware is entangled with dependencies that effectively eliminate all the pragmatic aspects of our license. The other world view is that our software is, well, soft; i.e., maleable. Our licensees are welcome to modify, combine, and optionally contribute back to our code bases. Furthermore, no matter how hard we try, our licensees are operate under a variety of different constraints or have a differing interpretations of license compatibility. Choosing between these two world views is difficult; but given that the former can only be executed if there are ample exceptions for "system" or "soft" dependencies -- concepts that are both undefinable and all too open to gaming -- clearly the latter is easiest to understand and administer. Or there is a belief that a "spec" from an industry consortia and with no independent implementations somehow makes copyright and patent issues less relevant. In any case, add to all this the evident divide, and the first world view becomes not only harder to understand and administer, it becomes absolutely unworkable. Simply put, an excemption for "system" dependencies that is based on a "I'll know it when I see it" policy doesn't work if a substantial portion of the people who may be drawn upon to express an opinion on the subject simply don't believe that any such distinction is either necessary or even makes sense as a policy. Therefore it appears that the only workable policy is one where we continue to require PMCs to compile a comprehensive set of LICENSEs to accompany each of our releases so that our licensees can make an informed decision. That, and perhaps to we can increase our efforts to educate PMCs as to the effects such dependencies have on community size. While this approach is workable, it is one that may be difficult to reverse. Hence, a slow and cautious approach is warranted. Should there be any as of yet unexpressed feedback, now would be a good time to provide it. I have reviewed the minutes for the meetings of 2005/06/22 and 2007/03/28 establishing the VP of Legal Affairs and the Legal Affairs Committee respectively, and believe that no board resolution and/or explicit approval is required for the Legal Affairs Committee to proceed on this matter.
Approved by General Consent.
The requested FAQ additions have been completed and posted. These additions did attract quite a few comments of support, and everybody had more than ample time to comment. I've seen no negative fallout as of yet of these additions. I mention this because these additions were initially controversial, but my impression is that over time some of the participants simply got less vocal rather than converted. Jason Schultz has left his staff attorney position at the EFF. Fred von Lohmann of the EFF has agreed to support us in his place. We have been informed of a potential tradmark infringment issue. I shoud have more details by the next meeting. There is a backlog of items that need to be addressed, preferably in parallel rather than serially. Rather than waste report time on what I perceive to be the biggest item, namely competing the Third Party Licensing policy, time permitting, I've added a discussion item in the hopes that we can come to a quick consensus on the approach. If quick consensus isn't achievable here, then the hope is that this will serve as a heads up so that the interested parties can participate in the discussion on legal-discuss. Other items in the backlog: Third Party Licensing: Minor update to to add OSOA as category A Additional updates to cover notices of optional dependencies (log4cxx, apr) Need a policy on whether depencencies on Ruby Gems are permissable (Buildr) WSRP4J licensing issues (Portals) Fork FAQ
Request was made that legal/status be updated.
Approved by General Consent.
No report submitted.
No written report submitted.
Brief discussion on the possibility of doing a BOF at ApacheCon.
After an extended quiet period, I thought I would collect up a few updates to the website, but that re-awoke the discussion. What's cool is that this time around, there actually are more people than Doug actually proposing actual wording. I'm convinced that we are continuing to make forward progress. Backlog of items include following up with Sun on following the licensing terms for Jasper, and a "fork FAQ".
Approved by General Consent.
Relatively quiet (and short) month. I believe that we are making progress on the Y! proposed additions to the FAQ, and should be able to close shortly. Short summary of the key issue: while the ASF as a whole does not confer any official status to "subprojects", this proposed FAQ would officially recognize that a PMC may, in fact, produce a number of independent "products". Simon Phipps forwarded to me a writeup by the FSF on how to retain appropriate copyright headers on works derived from non-GPL codebases and incorporated into GPL codebases. I posted this link on legal-internal, and it didn't provoke any objections, so I asked Simon to follow these instructions on the Jasper/Glassfish code. I will follow up to ensure that this is done.
Brief discussion concerning the possible need to change the bylaws. We decided not to pursue such a change.
Approved by General Consent.
* Continuing to work on Yahoo! patent scope FAQ. * Updated web page concerning Apache License and GPL compatibility * Updated 3rd party policy, resolving Geronimo and MyFaces issue * Participated in two call with ASF council regarding JCK/FOU issue * Continuing to work with Sun over ASF license code issues in Glassfish My goal continues to be to delegate more of this. If necessary, I will recruit more people onto the legal committee in order to make this happen.
Approved by General Consent.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed Cliff Schmidt to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation of Cliff Schmidt from the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee has recommended Sam Ruby as the successor to the post; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Cliff Schmidt is relieved and discharged from the duties and responsibilities of the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sam Ruby be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President, Legal Affairs, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed. Special order 7F, Change the Apache Vice President of Legal Affairs, was approved by Unanimous Vote.
WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expects to better serve its purpose through the periodic update of its membership; and WHEREAS, the Legal Affairs Committee is an Executive Committee whose membership must be approved by Board resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following ASF member be added as a Legal Affairs Committee members: Sam Ruby <firstname.lastname@example.org> Special order 7E, Update Legal Affairs Committee Membership, was approved by Unanimous Vote.
As mentioned in last month's report, I wish to resign as VP of Legal Affairs. The Legal Affairs Committee has discussed possible replacements over the last month and have reached consensus on Sam Ruby, who is not currently on the committee. Therefore, I have prepared two resolutions for the board to vote on: one to add Sam to the committee (being a board/executive committee) and one to have him replace me as VP. There are no other issues requring board attention this month.
Approved by General Consent.
On May 31st, the FSF released its "last call draft" of the GPLv3. In this draft and its associated press releases, the FSF prominently states that there is no longer a concern about the Apache License being "incompatible" with the GPLv3. The compatibility issue is describing whether they see a problem with an Apache-Licensed component being included within a larger GPLv3-licensed work. This is what they no longer see a problem with. Of course, there would still be much concern and debate about the licensing restrictions of a larger Apache-Licensed work that included a GPLv3-licensed component. The only other issue to report is that the legal affairs committee has been up and running for well over a month. In fact, I coordinated approval of the FSF's proposed GPLv3 wording with the committee (although sadly didn't plan far enough advance to coordinate this report). I will soon be asking the committee for nominations and an election of a new VP of Legal Affairs, with a proposed resolution before the Board by next month's meeting.
Approved by General Consent.
As I mentioned in my post to the board@ list shortly after last Board meeting, the FSF's third discussion draft of GPLv3 included a note that GPLv3 would not be compatible with the Apache License due to the indemnification provision. Both Larry Rosen and I have been in touch with the FSF and SFLC and expect this statement of incompatibility will soon be reversed without any change in the Apache License. The Board approved my resolution to establish a Legal Affairs Committee at last month's meeting. However, I have been lame in getting things started due to a shortage of available time in the last few weeks. I'll start getting the ball rolling this week.
Cliff indicated that, assuming the current "incompatibility" between GPLv3 and AL 2.0 is resolved, he does not foresee any further potential conflicts.
Approved by General Consent.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to create an Executive Committee charged with establishing and managing legal policies based on the advice of legal counsel and the interests of the Foundation; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes the existing office of Vice President of Legal Affairs will remain a valuable role within the Foundation and would benefit from the creation of such a committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that an ASF Executive Committee, to be known as the "Legal Affairs Committee", be and hereby is established pursuant to the Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Legal Affairs Committee be and hereby is responsible for establishing and managing legal policies based on the advice of legal counsel and the interests of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the responsibilities of the Vice President of Legal Affairs shall henceforth include management of the Legal Affairs Committee as its chair; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Legal Affairs Committee: Cliff Schmidt Davanum Srinivas Garrett Rooney Geir Magnusson Jim Jagielski Justin Erenkrantz Noel Bergman Robert Burrell Donkin Roy Fielding William Rowe Special Order 6C, Establish the Legal Affairs Committee, was approved by Unanimous Vote.
The only issue to report this month is the patent license FAQ. Following the plan I suggested in October, I've taken the FAQ proposed by Doug and agreed to by Roy (which addresses the concern for consistency with Roy's public statements on the topic while he served as ASF Chairman) and asked our counsel to review and advise. Barring any legal concerns from counsel, I recommend posting this FAQ. Incidentally, the question part of the FAQ is nearly identical to the one proposed in our September meeting; however, the answer no longer has the problem raised by some directors (that it was attempting to answer more than the question).
CLA UPDATE: I sent an update to legal-discuss last week to let everyone know that the plan is to publish a document that describes the original intention behind some of the ambiguities in the CLA and then to discuss the idea of a new version. Roy has agreed to write the "original intention" doc based on what statements he had made about the CLA's interpretation while he was ASF chair. GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: The SFLC contacted me about the latest proposed changes to the patent licensing in the next draft of GPLv3. I am reviewing now to ensure these changes would still allow Apache-Licensed works to be included in GPLv3-licensed works. STANDARDS LICENSING: I reviewed the BPEL specification patent licenses for Apache ODE. The licenses would not be acceptable by the ASF; however, there do not currently appear to be any patents to license. So, I see no problem with ODE implementing the BPEL spec. Another spec reviewed was the Yahoo-submitted IETF RFC on DomainKeys. Noel submitted this to legal-internal by Noel for review during ApacheCon US. I reviewed and commented on it there; while not ideal, it appears reasonable and should not hold back our development. My analyses for both BPEL and DomainKeys was approved by our legal counsel on legal-internal.
Cliff reported that work is continuing on the "crypto export" clarifications for use within the ASF. Also being worked on is the standards licensing. Cliff noted that SenderID is covered under the Open Specification promise, and therefore removes any restrictions on use.
Cliff reported that during ApacheCon, the CCLA issue was further discussed with many people, especially Roy and Doug Cutting. Both Roy and Doug were happy with the approach taken and Roy committed to "writing up" what his intents were with the CCLA, so that misinterpretation of the letter and spirit of the CCLA no longer exists. Cliff indicated his desire to create a sort of Legal Committee, similar to the PRC or Security Team, to allow for a wider range of volunteers to help with the various legal issues and questions still being worked on. His hope is also that this will provide an opportunity for him to resign from the VP of Legal Affairs position after a period of time. Cliff reported that a number of Universities and Colleges have contacted him regarding their own efforts in creating suitable licenses for their open source educational software. Cliff suggested that the ASF possible provide feedback and insights regarding our experiences with the AL as well as the iCLA and CCLAs.
CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: This work has been complete for over a month and projects are now starting to use the docs/process. At this stage it still requires me to work closely with the project to ensure they understand the docs, but the system is working. This will scale better as the docs are improved through experience. STANDARDS LICENSING: The standards patent covenant that I have mentioned giving feedback on over the last couple reports was made public about one week ago: the Microsoft "Open Specification Promise". While it is not perfect, I believe it should not block PMCs wishing to implement covered specifications. USPTO/OSDL's OSAPA: The Open Source As Prior Art initiative met in Portland, OR, last week for two days. I was able to join the group for the second day to learn a little about what is being planned. Will follow-up with email to board@. THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports) and then call it final, and ideally have it included in same email to committers as alerts on src header and crypto docs. (No change since last month) OSS PROJECT CODE MOVED TO ASF: When an incubating project's initial code base is submitted to the ASF, our CLA requires that "work that is not Your original creation" must be submitted "separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and... conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]". This presents a problem when the code base is an existing OSS project with intermingled IP from various sources. One solution I've seen in the past is for the multiple authors to jointly sign the same grant; however, due to a few problems with this approach, I've worked with one set of initial contributors to create a script that uses svn blame/log and a mapping file (svn id or a rev # --> legal owner) to output an exhaustive set of annotations to satisfy this requirement. PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I am late on getting this report done. I'm still having discussions with our lawyers and other members of the open source community on a daily / weekly basis. The goals of the report are to detail the ambiguities in the patent language of the current CCLA and to suggest that the board consider options, such as specific clarifications, revisions, and supplementary processes. These can be discussed at today's meeting if the board wishes; in addition, Doug Cutting would like the board to consider an FAQ to address some aspect of the CCLA's ambiguity. Cliff also reported that he will commit to having the 3rd Party issues complete by ApacheCon Austin.
LICENSING HEADER: About to move the deadline back to Nov 1st due to my slowness in getting out an email to committers@ pointing to new policy. However, many projects are already switching over from pointers on legal-discuss. CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: Lots of work with APR and especially James on fine-tuning the format for the email reports and web page. Have updated the docs to reflect this. Pretty much done now -- just need to include this on the committers@ email (see above re: license header). THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports) and then call it final, and ideally have it included in same email to committers as alerts on src header and crypto docs. (No change since last month) PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've continued to do some research and have some discussions with various companies and other open source organizations on this topic. I still hope to have a report comparing the options by the end of this month. STANDARDS LICENSING: A large software company will be soon be releasing a new patent license (actually a promise not to sue), under which several specifications will be covered. Much of our feedback has been incorporated into the latest draft. I expect we will be satisfied with the final result (TBA this month).
LEGAL HOME PAGE: Have created new legal home page with links to docs relevant for users and committers. Also posting and linking to these legal reports for interested committers to track progress. Please let me know if there are any concerns about this. Will publicize the legal home page and its links on Friday in email to committers@. LICENSING HEADER: The final version is now posted, linked from the new legal web page: apache.org/legal. Email to committers will go out on Friday. CRYPTO EXPORT DOCS: A nearly final version of this is posted including a lengthy FAQ from various dev-list discussions. Last step is to work with dreid on project- specific RDF files that build final required web page. Hoping to have this also done and in email to committers on Friday. THIRD-PARTY LICENSING POLICY: Haven't gotten to this yet, but hoping to make minor revisions and make enforcement approach clear in doc (as described in previous reports) and then call it final, and ideally have it included in same email to committers as alerts on src header and crypto docs. PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've tried to keep the board aware enough of this discussion over the last 2-3 months to jump in as any director sees fit; however, recent discussions on board@ lead me to believe that I should request this to become an item of new business, rather than wait for another director to inquire more about it. I suggest a brief conversation on the topic today, followed by a more detailed presentation of the concerns of each side of the issue at some point in the near future. SFLC LETTER ON ODF: After clarifying with SFLC that we did not want their letter to represent an "Apache position" on ODF nor did we want our name used in any PR on the subject, I agreed to the text of their letter. Since publishing the letter several weeks ago, they appear to have honored my requests completely. STANDARDS LICENSING: I continue to have conversations with vendors on how they can improve the licensing of their essential patent claims for specifications that Apache would consider implementing. I'm actually seeing some progress/willingness to revise from vendors.
LICENSING HEADER: I sent a summary of the resolution passed at last month's meeting to the legal-discuss list and am compiling a short FAQ based on questions from that thread. The summary and FAQ will be linked from a new apache.org/legal/ home page by the end of the week, and send a notification of the posting to committers@. I originally stated that the new header would need to be implemented on releases on or after August 1, 2006, but will push that date back one month, since I was slow to get this out to all committers. PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: There continues to be some degree of controversy over my statement on how the CCLA patent license should be interpreted. I continue to state that the patents are licensed for both the contribution and combinations of the contribution with the continuing evolution of the project. In other words, the ASF is not interested in contributions with strings attached (strings = restrictions on what it can be combined with). SFLC LETTER ON ODF: The SFLC has asked us to review a draft statement on the legal encumbrances of the OASIS ODF specification. If we agree with the draft, they would like to issue a statement that they are representing the positions on two of their clients, the ASF and FSF.
LICENSING HEADER: I have submitted a resolution for the Board's consideration to set a new policy for source code headers. In brief, the headers will no longer include any copyright notice, only a licensing notice and a mention of the NOTICE file for copyright info. The NOTICE file will include the ASF's copyright notice, in addition to other required notices. Copyright notices in third-party components distributed within ASF products will not be touched. CRYPTO EXPORT POLICY: I have posted a crypto policy at http://apache.org/dev/crypto.html. The policy should answer most of our questions in this area, but will be gradually enhanced over time. GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: After a close review of the first draft of GPLv3, I brought up potential incompatibility issues with the Apache License to the GPLv3 discussion committee that I serve on. The FSF's counsel hopes these issues can be addressed in the next draft. As I've said before, both the FSF and the SFLC continue to be unwavering in their dedication to ensure GPLv3 is compatible with Apache License v2. PATENT LICENSING IN CCLAS: I've spent a lot of time with one particular corporate legal staff lately with their questions of whether the CCLA implies that the set of all possible patent claims being licensed can be known at the time of contribution. It's obvious why a corporation would want the answer to be affirmative; however, such an answer would not protect the project's work from patent infringement claims by a contributor regarding how their contribution is combined with other things. It may be worth revising the (C)CLA language to make this more clear. ELECTRONICALLY SUBMITTED AGREEMENTS: Now allowed. See the Secretary's report. LICENSING AUDITS: I work closely with the Eclipse Foundation's IP Manager, who continues to inform me of apparent inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the licensing of ASF products. I've been asking PMCs to address these issues as they come up, but what we really need is an internal audit on each product to get these problems fixed. Before we can do that, we need complete documentation on the things an audit should look for and how they should be corrected. I will likely make this a priority for the "Docathon" at ApacheCon EU next month. THIRD-PARTY IP: Due to the issues above, I've neglected to make the few remaining changes to the draft licensing policy doc and publish the official version. As I mentioned last month, I intend to tell PMCs that all new products MUST conform to the policy, but that all existing products that do not currently conform need to only take one action over the next six months: report where/how they are not conforming so that the practical impact of the policy can be better understood without yet requiring substantial changes. The philosophy behind this "impact evaluation period" is that the policy was primarily intended to document the mostly unwritten rules today and to choose one rule when multiple exist across the ASF. Now that I've cleared the license header and crypto issues off the high priority list, I hope to focus exclusively (as much as possible) on getting the 1.0 version out.
WHEREAS, the copyright of contributions to The Apache Software Foundation remains with the contribution's owner(s), but the copyright of the collective work in each Foundation release is owned by the Foundation, WHEREAS, each file within a Foundation release often includes contributions from multiple copyright owners, WHEREAS, the Foundation has observed that per-file attribution of authorship does not promote collaborative development, WHEREAS, inclusion of works that have not been directly submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation for development does not present the same collaborative development issues and does not allow the owners to consider the Foundation's copyright notice policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for the case of copyright notices in files contributed and licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: remove such notices, move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project release, or provide written permission for the Foundation to make such removal or relocation of the notices, and be it further RESOLVED, that each release shall include a NOTICE file for such copyright notices and other notices required to accompany the distribution, and be it further RESOLVED, that the NOTICE file shall begin with the following text, suitably modified to reflect the product name, version, and year(s) of distribution of the current and past releases: Apache [PRODUCT_NAME] Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). and be it further RESOLVED, that files licensed to The Apache Software Foundation shall be labeled with the following notice: Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. and be it further RESOLVED, that for the case of works that have not been directly submitted by the copyright owners to the Foundation for development, the associated copyright notices for the work shall not be moved, removed, or modified. By Unanimous Vote, Special Order 6C, Establish guidelines for handling copyright notices and license headers, was Approved.
Cliff reported that the 3rd Party License report will likely be officially released later on this month (April), at which point he will start on the Copyright/Header issues. Regarding the 3rd Party License report, it is fully expected that, even though discussed and reviewed, there will be further discussions upon release. The board's stand is that we should release it "as is" and retify things if required. All new projects will need to adhere to the policy; existing projects will be given time to bring their codebases up to policy standards. The board expressed their appreciation to Cliff for a Job Well Done.
THIRD-PARTY IP: After nearly two months of review on the board@ list and one month of review by pmcs@, I've finally posted the latest draft of the third-party licensing policy to the legal-discuss list. My goal is to get all new comments or concerns collected by the end of the month, and resolve all issues to get a final, official, v1.0 release in April. I will also be trying to solicit user comments through the feather blog and a brief pointer sent to a few of the project user lists. However, I would also like to explicitly verify that there is a consensus from the Board in support of the guiding principles* behind the policy and the resulting license criteria**. *http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#principles **http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criteria LICENSING HEADER, ETC: Now that the third-party policy doc is out there, my next major project is to draft and get our counsel to approve a document that updates our source code licensing header, describes where to place copyright notices, various third-party licenses, explains how to deal with crypto export issues, and more. Although I think it will be useful to our committers to have this all in one document, I won't hold up getting a resolution on the license header/copyright notice issue to wait for the rest of the document.
GPLv3: I just finished attending the GPLv3 conference at MIT, during which the first "discussion draft" of the GPLv3 was presented. The most relevant news is that the current discussion draft includes a "License Compatibility" section that allows the inclusion of Apache-Licensed (v2.0) independent works within GPLv3-licensed programs. This section may change within the next year, but it remains clear that Eben and RMS will continue to make this sort of compatibility with the Apache License a priority. The other news is that I have accepted an invitation to represent the ASF on one the GPLv3 "discussion committees". THIRD-PARTY IP: I will be sending out a draft policy on third- party IP to the board@ list this Friday, January 20th. Cliff further reported that the Copyright Notice Policy was still being worked on, and will be finished some time after the completion of the 3rd Party License Policy Report.
PATENT ISSUES: I had a second meeting with Microsoft about possible improvements to the patent licenses that they have stated would apply to various WS specifications at OASIS. Details can be found in my summary post to legal-internal on 6 Dec 05 (Message-Id: <81007DBD-EBD8-45DC-8A35-0FB8F4F3FC11@apache.org>. I've since asked them about the possibility of issuing a Covenant not to enforce patent claims, similar to what they recently did for Office 2003 Reference Schemas. No response on that one just yet. GPLv3 COMPATIBILITY: Eben Moglen and RMS have each personally asked that the ASF participate in the GPLv3 input/feedback process, primarily to help ensure compatibility between the GPL and Apache licenses. I plan to attend the first GPLv3 conference at MIT in January for that purpose. THIRD-PARTY IP: After talking with 20+ ASF members at ApacheCon about a proposed licensing policy, I am now ready to float something formal by the membership. The short version is that I believe we need to draw the licensing line at the ability for our users to redistribute all parts of an official ASF distribution under their own license, as long as it does not violate the copyright owner's license. I'm working up a list of how this would impact the top 30 OSI- approved licenses and a few others, but I can tell you it would exclude both the LGPL and the Sun Binary Code License, which is currently used in Apache James. LAME LIST: In prior reports I said I expected to have a policy written on crypto export and copyright notices. I'm late on both. I am now able to projects with the correct procedure for crypto, but I still need to get it formally documented.
SFLC: Justin and I had a kick-off meeting with Eben and two of his lawyers. Justin and Greg are already working with one of them to handle any issues with our books and 501(c)(3) status. Justin is the point person for this work and will be handling ongoing status in his Treasurer's report. BXA/CRYPTO: The Perl folks sent out the required notification for the mod_ssl stuff. I've now taken their feedback and drafted a process document to run through counsel. Jason has referred me to another EFF lawyer with more crypto export experience who has agreed to review it. COPYRIGHT NOTICS: Our counsel will be giving one final review on the copyright notice issue starting this Friday (during a monthly teleconference). Should have something ready within one week after that. LGPL: I'm still waiting on feedback from Eben on my Java/LGPL position paper that I sent him last month. He wanted to refrain from giving me feedback until discussing the matter with the FSF. I expect to have something any day now, since that meeting should have recently happened. I recommend we hold off any decision to allow distribution of LGPL components within non- incubating product JARs until getting this one last opinion from Eben and then bouncing it off the rest of our counsel. However, I do not think we should have any legal concern about separately distributing the LGPL and ASF component that depends on it; both Jason and Larry have signed off on this question. THIRD-PARTY IP: In the process of working on a document to get us to a comprehensive policy on what third-party software we will distribute and how, I have created a little matrix to summarize the issues across the most common licenses of interest to the ASF today. I will send this matrix to legal-discuss list today for discussion. It might also be helpful for discussing how LGPL is similar and different from licenses like the CPL and CDDL. ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: All these issues and more are being written to live within a series of ASF legal policy documents that I am hoping to have approved at or soon after ApacheCon. HOUSEKEEPING: I've created a new directory /foundation/legal/ Board to include all Legal reports and approved resolutions with a README indicating that they are compiled there for convenience and with a pointer to the normative versions.
This was a placeholder for a potential resolution regarding the ASF Policy for Dependencies on LGPL code. No resolution was forthcoming.
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL: I have signed an agreement with Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center to have them offer the ASF pro bono legal services. The first job will be to work with Justin on renewing our 501(c)(3) status and some of the thorny issues we need to resolve to get our books in order. BXA/CRYPTO: While I was working on a draft crypto policy, I was notified that the Perl PMC (and Tomcat?) may not have sent notification to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, formerly known as BXA). This has required me to try out specific guidance on these two projects, which will hopefully make the formal policy more robust. I'm still working with the Perl and Tomcat PMCs to help solve their immediate issues. Most of the relevant discussion has been cc'd to legal-internal. COPYRIGHT NOTICES: Last month I reported that I was getting general agreement from our counsel to move to a policy that requires only a licensing notice, but not a copyright notice at the top of each source file. I regret to say that I have made very little progress on this issue since last month. I'll have this ready for next board meeting. LGPL: Last month I reported that this issue needs to be addressed within the context of an overall policy stating what licenses are acceptable for ASF distributions to take dependencies on and distribute (see "Third Party IP" issue below). Ten days ago, I sent Eben Moglen (in his role as general counsel for the FSF) a five-page document (including a developer-focused FAQ) on my interpretation of exactly what the LGPL allows and does not allow related to Java dependencies and distribution requirements. He has not given me feedback on this yet, but has been talking about releasing a similar position paper on behalf of the FSF. THIRD-PARTY IP: Last month I reported that most of the licenses we thought we could sublicense under the Apache License (including the CPL) can really only be distributed under their own license. So, we now need to figure out what makes a license okay to include in an Apache distribution. I've made very little progress on this in the last month, but I hope to have a policy written, discussed, and ready for approval by the December board meeting. ASF LEGAL POLICY DOC: Although I did not make as much progress as I'd hoped on the copyright notice and third-party IP issues over the last month, I did write up and outline for an overall legal policy doc to address these issues and others. The outline (including a brief preview of where the document was probably headed) was sent to legal-discuss.
COPYRIGHT NOTICES: I have gotten Jason, Larry, Robyn, and even Eben Moglen to all agree that we should be fine with no copyright notice at the top of each source file, and instead just include a licensing notice similar to what Roy recently posted to the Board@ list. The issue that isn't quite solved yet is the mechanics of ensuring any COPYRIGHT file or section of the NOTICE file is in sync with the CLAs and agreements from outside contributors. BXA/CRYPTO: I now have an understanding of the open source exception to the crypto export requirements. I've read through the relevant docs at bxa.doc.gov, eff.org, and a legal opinion from McGlashan & Sarrail dated September 13, 2000, which I found in /foundation/Records/BXA. There was a minor (generally favorable) change to the TSU exception (the one that applies to open source) last December. The bottom line is that there appears to be no problem with distributing source or binaries as long as we give appropriate notice to the BXA/BIS. My next step is to get an updated opinion from Jason and publish guidelines to PMCs. LGPL: There's the legal requirements side of this issue and the policy side (as with so many things). I believe I have already completed the due dilligence on the legal requirements side; however, during conversations with Eben Moglen I've found that he plans to publish a document that is explicit about the issues or non-issues with Java and the LGPL. I will be sending him my view of these issues this week, which I hope will influence what ends up in his document. On the policy side, we need to stop treating the LGPL differently from other licenses, and instead determine what our policy is for taking dependencies on and distributing third-party IP. THIRD-PARTY IP: Any time we bring in third-party IP that is not licensed under the Apache License, we have two choices: a) sublicense the work under the Apache License (if we have the rights to do so), or b) distribute the Apache product under each applicable license and make that clear to our users. We've been trying to say we're only doing a) so far. However, in my view we are obviously not consistently doing this, nor do I think it is practical to do so. So, I'm now thinking the best way to address issues of shipping CPL, MPL, CDDL, LGPL, etc. is to stop trying to sublicense them under the Apache License and instead create and implement a policy that allows us to distribute products that contain IP under some set of license terms (including terms outside the scope of the Apache License).
I've inserted slightly edited versions of the same MPL/NPL and LGPL resolutions, which were tabled last month. Since last month's meeting, I have: - confirmed with a second member of ASF's legal counsel that the proposed LGPL policy does not put our product licensing at risk; - posted and discussed the proposed LGPL policy on the legal-discuss list, where no new concerns were raised about the licensing ramifications; however there was concern raised by both outside lawyers and Apache committers that dependencies on LGPL libraries was not in the best interests of some Apache users; - engaged with representatives of the Mozilla Foundation to discuss the proposed MPL/NPL licensing policy. While they have *not* yet formally indicated their agreement with our interpretation, they have not yet raised any new concerns. Future action items include resolving the BXA/crypto issue and investigating and proposing policies for the CPL, EPL, and CDDL licenses. Finally, one of my short-term objectives is to overhaul the legal STATUS file to reflect the current priorities and status.
WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve their mission through the occasional dependency on existing LGPL-licensed libraries when no other practical alternative exists under terms covered by the Apache License, Version 2.0; and WHEREAS, research into the impact of distributing ASF products that depend on the presence of LGPL-licensed libraries indicates that the product licensing terms are not affected by such a dependency; and WHEREAS, the current ASF licensing policy discourages the distribution of intellectual property by the ASF under terms beyond those stated in the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that PMCs may develop and distribute products that depend on the presence of LGPL-licensed libraries when no other practical alternative exists under terms covered by the Apache License, Version 2.0; and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs will register such use of an LGPL-licensed library with the Vice President of Legal Affairs prior to the PMC's next regularly scheduled Board report, and in no case less than two weeks prior to the distribution of the applicable product(s); and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs will continue to reevaluate whether a practical alternative exists under terms covered by the Apache License, Version 2.0, which could be substituted in place of the LGPL-licensed library; and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs must continue to ensure that they do not distribute LGPL-licensed libraries or any other intellectual property that is only available under licenses with terms beyond those stated in the Apache License, Version 2.0. Special Order 6C, Allow product dependencies on LGPL-licensed libraries, was Tabled. The main discussion points were whether the permission of dependencies invalidated the spirit of the ASF and the Apache License. Discussion was to be continued on the Board mailing list.
WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve their mission through the use and redistribution of the executable form of existing source code licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) or Netscape Public License (NPL); and WHEREAS, it is the ASF's interpretation that the MPL and NPL licenses permit distribution of such executables under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0, provided the terms applicable to the associated source code have been complied with and that appropriate entries made in the ASF distribution's NOTICE file; and WHEREAS, the current ASF licensing policy discourages the distribution of intellectual property by the ASF under terms beyond those stated in the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that PMCs may use and redistribute the executable form of existing source code licensed under the MPL 1.0, MPL 1.1, NPL 1.0, or NPL 1.1; and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs must ensure such redistribution only occurs after appropriate entries have been made in the ASF distribution's NOTICE file and only if the PMC finds that the MPL/NPL terms applicable to the associated source code appear to have been satisfied. Special Order 6B, Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables, was Approved by Unanimous Consent.
See Special Orders for two proposed resolutions. The first resolution allows PMCs to develop and distribute software that depends on the presence of LGPL-licensed libraries, *without* distributing the libraries themselves. After numerous discussions with the FSF, other LGPL licensors, and ASF counsel, Larry Rosen, it appears that such a policy should not impact the product licensing. In order to allow PMCs to apply this policy to all useful LGPL-licensed libraries, the resolution does not require the PMCs to get an agreement from each copyright owner, but instead requires the PMC to register the use of the particular LGPL library with the VP of Legal Affairs. See my post to the board@ list for more details ("My recommendation for an ASF policy on the LGPL"). The second resolution allows PMCs to redistribute MPL/NPL- licensed executables. The key difference between the MPL/NPL and the LGPL regarding redistribution requirements is that the MPL/NPL allows redistribution under any license (provided that the distributor complies with the applicable terms of the MPL/NPL); the LGPL requires redistribution of either the source or executable of the library to be licensed only under the LGPL. While the MPL 1.0, MPL 1.1, NPL 1.0, and NPL 1.1 are nearly identical in their treatment of redistribution of executables, it is important to note that the NPL licenses are not OSI- approved, as they discriminate in favor of Netscape, weakening the terms that Netscape has to comply with relative to other users. See my post to the board@ list for more details ("MPL/NPL Issue: My recommendation for an ASF policy on the MPL/NPL"). NOTE: Larry Rosen has agreed with my analysis of the MPL/NPL licenses as described in the referenced post; however, yesterday he suggested that I confirm that Mitchell Baker also agrees (author of the licenses). I have not yet received her response. This could be a reason to table this resolution.
WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve their mission through the use and redistribution of existing software executables that are licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) or Netscape Public License (NPL); and WHEREAS, research into the impact of distributing MPL- and NPL-licensed executables indicated that such distribution is allowed under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0, only if specific entries made in the NOTICE file and if the associated source code complies with the applicable terms of the MPL/NPL; and WHEREAS, the current ASF licensing policy continues to require all intellectual property distributed by the ASF be licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that PMCs may use and redistribute software executables that are licensed under the MPL 1.0, MPL 1.1, NPL 1.0, or NPL 1.1; and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs must ensure such redistribution only occurs after entries are made in the associated product's NOTICE file in compliance with the terms of the MPL/NPL, and that the associated source code also complies with the applicable terms of the MPL/NPL. Resolution 6F was tabled with general consent. Questions arose why MPL 1.0 was not ok before. It is suggested to get feedback from Mitchel Baker. Action Item: Review earlier arguments why MPL 1.0 was not ok.
WHEREAS, some Project Management Committees (PMCs) within The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) expect to better serve their mission through the use of existing LGPL-licensed libraries as a product dependency; and WHEREAS, research into the impact of distributing ASF products that depend on the presence of LGPL-licensed libraries has indicated that the product licensing terms are not affected by such a dependency; and WHEREAS, the current ASF licensing policy continues to require all intellectual property distributed by the ASF be licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that PMCs may develop and distribute products that depend on the presence of LGPL-licensed libraries; and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs will register such use of an LGPL-licensed library with the Vice President of Legal Affairs prior to the PMC's next regularly scheduled Board report, and in no case less than one week prior to the distribution of the applicable product(s); and be it further RESOLVED, that PMCs must continue to ensure they do not distribute LGPL-licensed libraries or any other intellectual property that cannot be strictly licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Discussion occurred that raised questions: Is the FSF position public? Will downstream users be comfortable with this? The conclusion was to give 3rd parties time to react to this proposed resolution prior to voting on it. Resolution 6E was tabled with general consent.
WHEREAS, the Netscape/Mozilla Public Licenses are software licenses created to explicitly allow redistribution of products, licensed using these licenses, in commercially, non-open source products; and WHEREAS, the Netscape/Mozilla Public Licenses requires changes to NPL/MPL-ed code to be made available to the public under the same license; and WHEREAS, the Cocoon and XML Graphics Program Management Committee wish to include Rhino, an NPL-licensed product, in their products (Batik and Cocoon); and WHEREAS, Rhino will be included as-is inside said products, and no changes will be made to the Rhino source code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Apache Software Foundation endorses the NPL/MPL license as an appropriate license for code libraries that are redistributed, unchanged, with ASF products. Special Order C, Endorsement of MPL for dependencies, was tabled.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to appoint an officer responsible for legal affairs, including but not limited to streamlining communication between the Foundation's Project Management Committees, legal counsel, the Board and other parties pertaining to legal issues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the office of "Vice President of Legal Affairs" be and hereby created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors, and to have primary responsibility of coordinating the Foundation's legal counsel pertaining to legal issues; and be it further RESOLVED, that Cliff Schmidt be and hereby is appointed to the office of Vice President of Legal Affairs, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed. By Unanimous Vote, Cliff Schmidt was appointed as VP of Legal Affairs.
Still a placeholder. For information, the version we'll vote on will be: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/infrastructure/site/trunk/docs/licenses/proposed/cla-corporate.txt Special Order C, Approve new version of Corporate CLA, was tabled. However, it was noted that the proposed Corporate CLA was accepted but not ratified.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose that the Foundation receives assignment of copyright of all contributions to the Foundation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors does affirm that ownership of copyright by the ASF is in the best interest of the Foundation, and will work to create documentation and agreements for contributors to the ASF incorporating this basic principle. Special Order B, Affirm Intent to Own Copyright to all ASF Distributions, was tabled.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose that the Foundation receives assignment of copyright of all contributions to the Foundation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors does affirm that ownership of copyright by the ASF is in the best interest of the Foundation, and will work to create documentation and agreements for contributors to the ASF incorporating this basic principle. The above resolution created some discussion, not on the basic principles, but on how it would affect the current impact on new and proposed projects. In particular, such basic questions as whether this meant that any and all new projects would have to be "delayed for inclusion" until the legal ramifications of owning copyright and how it affects the current codebase of all ASF projects. A vote was held on whether the ASF should, for the short time being, continue "business as usual" regarding the form and wording of the ASF Copyright statement as well as accepting new projects, codebases and contributions, until such time that these questions are answered to satisfaction. A vote of Yea was for continuing "business as usual;" Nay was for holding off until the questions have been answered. Yea: Brian, Dirk, Jim, Stefano, Sander Nay: Ken, Geir By majority vote, the issue passed. It should be noted that all directors agreed very strongly that the copyright issue is extremely important and a high priority issue to be resolved. It is expected that discussion will be held via the mailing lists regarding this in anticipation of a final resolution in time for the November board meeting.
WHEREAS, It is the intent of the ASF to provide its members and licensees substantial freedom in the use of ASF programs and to avoid imposing any restrictions on the use of ASF Programs under the ASF license that would conflict with the Open Source Definition maintained by the Open Source Initiative. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ASF may only agree to pass along restrictions upon a licensee's use of ASF programs under the ASF license if the ASF is advised by its legal counsel that it is required to do so by law, and the commitment is approved by the ASF Board of Directors; and be it further RESOLVED, that the ASF may only pass along notices to its licensees that may restrict a licensee's use of an ASF program under the ASF license, or otherwise limit a licensee's freedom in any respect, if the ASF is advised by its legal counsel that it is required to do so by law, and the notice is approved by the ASF Board of Directors. As an example, the ASF may not pass along notices purporting to restrict the ability of a licensee to make truthful statements regarding programs that are based on the ASF program, unless the conditions set forth above are met; and be it further RESOLVED, that the ASF may pass along offers of additional rights or benefits to its licensees, in addition to the rights included in the ASF license. As an example, the ASF may pass along a notice that a trademark license is available from a third party for use with the ASF program, provided that the trademark license is reasonable, and offered to all ASF program licensees on a nondiscriminatory basis, and also provided that use of the ASF program under the ASF license is not conditioned upon the trademark license. Some ASF programs are designed to be compatible with industry standards and are tested by the ASF to verify compliance with the standard. Since compatibility with standards is important, and since the ASF license does not address claims of compatibility, it is acceptable, and not inconsistent with this policy, for the ASF program to include an additional license restriction that prohibits a licensee from making false claims of compatibility with the industry standard. However, such restriction may not restrict the licensees right to use, modify or distribute the program. As an example, an ASF program that is designed to implement a Java specification and tested to verify conformance with the speciification may include an additional license restriction prohibiting the licensee from misrepresenting the conformance of the modified program. Therefore a licensee may accurately describe a program as having been tested for conformance by the ASF if the code that implements the specification has not been modified, or a licensee may accurately describe a program as being compatible if no modifications have been made that would affect compatibility. Geir noted that the resolution was somewhat complicated and he had not enough time to read through, and asked that it be tabled until next month. There was no opposition. Discussion later in the meeting returned to this issue, and it was agreed to table and discuss at member's meeting in November 2004.
WHEREAS, Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation have an immediate need for an approved text to be used as a Corporate Contributor License Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Corporate Contributor License Agreement attached hereto as Attachment U may be used by all Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation. Both Corporate and Individual agreements were discussed together. There was concern from several that they had been recently posted to the license mail list, but Sam noted that they were posted right after May board meeting, and that recent activity only had to with a set of concerns by Brian. Brian had a concern regarding two changes in the Corp CLA that appeared to create a loophole, but was satisfied with the response from Jennifer Machovec, the proposer of the changes, that there was no loophole as the issue in question was dealt with by the Individual CLA, and since a Corp CLA never stands on it's own - there is always a Individual CLA for the contributor - there is no problem. It was suggested to bump to next month to give time for more consideration, but Sam noted that he didn't believe much would happen in another month since nothing happened in the last month. General agreement. Brian and Greg suggested adding a version number, and based on a question from Stefano, it was clarified that new revisions wouldn't necessarily require a re-signing by existing CLA signatories. By unanimous vote, the new Corporate Contributor License Agreement was approved.
WHEREAS, Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation have an immediate need for an approved text to be used as a Contributor License Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Individual Contributor License Agreement attached hereto as Attachment T may be used by all Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation. See discussion notes below for "C. Corporate Contributor License Agreement" Dirk left the meeting at 11:03 PDT. At this point, quorum was maintained by Brian, Geir, Stefano, Sam, Greg and Sander. By unanimous vote, the new Individual Contributor License Agreement was approved.
Thank you for your interest in The Apache Software Foundation (the "Foundation"). In order to clarify the intellectual property license granted with Contributions from any person or entity, the Foundation must have a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file that has been signed by each Contributor, indicating agreement to the license terms below. This license is for your protection as a Contributor as well as the protection of the Foundation and its users; it does not change your rights to use your own Contributions for any other purpose. This version of the Agreement allows an entity (the "Corporation") to authorize Contributions submitted by its designated employees to the Foundation and to grant copyright and patent licenses thereto. If you have not already done so, please complete and send an original signed Agreement to The Apache Software Foundation, 1901 Munsey Drive, Forest Hill, MD 21050-2747, U.S.A. If necessary, you may send it by facsimile to the Foundation at +1-410-803-2258. Please read this document carefully before signing and keep a copy for your records. Corporation name: ________________________________________________ Corporation address: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Point of Contact: ________________________________________________ E-Mail: ________________________________________________ Telephone: _____________________ Fax: _____________________ You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. 1. Definitions. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation. For legal entities, the entity making a Contribution and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity are considered to be a single Contributor. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as "Not a Contribution." 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by You that are necessarily infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone or by combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) were submitted. If any entity institutes patent litigation against You or any other entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that your Contribution, or the Work to which you have contributed, constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to that entity under this Agreement for that Contribution or Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. 4. You represent that You are legally entitled to grant the above license. You represent further that each employee of the Corporation designated on Schedule A below (or in a subsequent written modification to that Schedule) is authorized to submit Contributions to the designated Work(s)on behalf of the Corporation. 5. You represent that each of Your Contributions is Your original creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of others). 6. You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, You provide Your Contributions on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]". 8. It is your responsibility to notify the Foundation when any change is required to the list of designated employees authorized to submit Contributions on behalf of the Corporation, or to the Corporation's Point of Contact with the Foundation. Please sign: __________________________________ Date: _______________ Title: __________________________________ Corporation: __________________________________ Schedule A [initial list of designated employees]
Thank you for your interest in The Apache Software Foundation (the "Foundation"). In order to clarify the intellectual property license granted with Contributions from any person or entity, the Foundation must have a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) on file that has been signed by each Contributor, indicating agreement to the license terms below. This license is for your protection as a Contributor as well as the protection of the Foundation and its users; it does not change your rights to use your own Contributions for any other purpose. If you have not already done so, please complete and send an original signed Agreement to The Apache Software Foundation, 1901 Munsey Drive, Forest Hill, MD 21050-2747, U.S.A. If necessary, you may send it by facsimile to the Foundation at +1-410-803-2258. Please read this document carefully before signing and keep a copy for your records. Full name: ____________________________ E-Mail: _________________ Address: ______________________________ Telephone: _________________ _______________________________________ Facsimile: _________________ _______________________________________ Country: _________________ You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation. In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution. Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. 1. Definitions. "You" (or "Your") shall mean the copyright owner or legal entity authorized by the copyright owner that is making this Agreement with the Foundation. For legal entities, the entity making a Contribution and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity are considered to be a single Contributor. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship, including any modifications or additions to an existing work, that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation for inclusion in, or documentation of, any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the "Work"). For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Foundation or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Foundation for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as "Not a Contribution." 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by You that are necessarily infringed by Your Contribution(s) alone or by combination of Your Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If any entity institutes patent litigation against You or any other entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that your Contribution, or the Work to which you have contributed, constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to that entity under this Agreement for that Contribution or Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. 4. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation. 5. You represent that each of Your Contributions is Your original creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of others). You represent that Your Contribution submissions include complete details of any third-party license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents and trademarks) of which you are personally aware and which are associated with any part of Your Contributions. 6. You are not expected to provide support for Your Contributions, except to the extent You desire to provide support. You may provide support for free, for a fee, or not at all. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, You provide Your Contributions on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]". 8. You agree to notify the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which you become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any respect. Please sign: __________________________________ Date: _______________
It was agreed that providing links to external locations for old versions of SA (Spam Assassin), until an official ASF release of SA would be in the best interest of the community. As soon as the 1st ASF release of SA is available, the ASF shall remove all links to the old versions. At not point will old versions be hosted or available via ASF infrastructure.
March 1 was confirmed as the deadline for the receipt of CLAs before CVS accounts are disabled.
Although initiated due to the current efforts for Spam Assassin, the board discussed at length the issues and guidelines regarding copyright ownership for the ASF. It was agreed that all files should have 1 single copyright to the ASF. Copyrights extend to the work as a whole, and the ASF must have these. The use of the CHANGES files should note any "history" regarding copyrights and that the use of 'author' tags should be discouraged for this and other reasons.
WHEREAS, the foundation membership has expressed a strong desire for an update to the license under which Apache software is released, WHEREAS, proposed text for the new license has been reworked and refined for many, many months, based on feedback from the membership and other parties outside the ASF, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed license found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/LICENSE-2.0.txt is officially named the Apache Software License 2.0. To grant a sufficient transition time, this license is to be used for all software releases from the Foundation after the date of March 1st, 2004. By Unanimous Vote, the new Apache License 2.0 was approved.
WHEREAS, Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation have an immediate need for an approved text to be used as a License for both software and documentation; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that such License be compatible with the Free Software Foundation's General Public License; and WHEREAS, public discussion of more extensive changes to the license, known as the proposed 2.0 license, is not expected to complete in time to satisfy the immediate need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Apache License, Version 1.2, attached hereto as Exhibit A, may be used by all Project Management Committees within The Apache Software Foundation for application to any of the work products of the Foundation, defining the terms and conditions of reproduction, distribution, and modification for those work products. This was tabled until the ASF Board Meeting to be held in November after review and discussion. However, general discussion of License and CLAs issues was held between the board and guess Jennifer Machovec (see below).
The result of this discussion was that the ASF should wait for an exact request from Peter Donald regarding both the grant of copyright and grant of distribution. Until we know the exact items that Mr. Donald is requesting, it is premature to make any decisions or agreements.
Bill Stoddard asked: "I would like to add this item to the board meeting agenda. I propose the following amendment to the CLA to add the phrase (all caps) as follows:" 4. You represent that, except as disclosed in your Contribution submission(s), each of your Contributions is your original creation. You represent that your Contribution submission(s) include complete details of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents and trademarks) OF WHICH YOU PERSONALLY ARE AWARE AND WHICH ARE associated with any part of your Contribution(s) (including a copy of any applicable license agreement). You agree to notify the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which you become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any respect. This item was tabled in order to allow us to get a formal legal opinion regarding the effects of the change. Ben Laurie is tasked to contact Robyn regarding this item.
Due to the details of European Law, the ASF cannot legally deny warranty (AS IS) on the code. We can, however, allow someone to take it over. SAP is requesting such approval from us to allow them to distribute Apache in their product line. The proposed agreement is Attachment A. The following resolution (R2) was proposed: RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors approves the amendment to the Apache Software License, version 1.1, attached hereto as Attachment A, for use by SAP in redistributing software owned by the Foundation. Resolution R2 was proposed and seconded. The Resolution R2 was approved by unanimous vote of all directors present
The topic that was discussed was related to the following statement in the Agenda: "There seems to be general agreement in the licensing mailing list on the content within Exhibit A (which is the same as in the file foundation/Licenses/Apache/license-roy.txt) as a new license that would accomplish the previously stated goals. The board can choose to approve it for use now (leaving it to each PMC as to when/if to apply it for each project), mandate that it be used by all PMC after a certain date, send it to an outside lawyer for further review, ask the members to vote on it, or any combination of the above." Discussion of the proposed license centered around whether the additional complexity due to addressing patent and contribution issues was worth the departure from the simple BSD-like terms. The question also arose as to whether such a change would require a full vote of the members due to how important the open source license is to the mission and bylaws of the Foundation. Roy offered to create a more BSD-like alternative license for the purpose of comparision, and will send a message to all ASF committers to be sure that they are aware of the proposed license change and are able to make comments on the proposal before the board makes a final decision. This item was then tabled for consideration at a future meeting after more feedback has been received from interested parties. ======
Update from Dirk on Coriolis book that stripped our license and added a GPL license. Dirk indicated that he is waiting for a response from our lawyers.
Dirk presented information regarding various License statements desired and required by Data Channel. The board agreed that continued work on the effort was required. Dirk agreed to handle the issues and keep the board informed of its status.