Prev: Applet UpCall from JS Event - Which Thread?
Next: eclipselink @table annotation
From: Lew on 22 Mar 2010 09:33
Lew wrote:
>> Of what restrictions do you speak?  The point of open-source licenses is that
>> they *remove* restrictions from future users.
>> The BSD license and the Apache license aren't very far apart in their
>> consequences.
>> I really am interested in what negative consequences you anticipate from the
>> Apache license.  What are they?

dennis wrote:
> First let me clarify something. With users in this case I mean people or customers using the sources
> and not only the compiled code. For the later no real restrictions do apply. For the people using and
> deriving of the sources restrictions do apply.
> The most notable is from the GPL: All derived works should also be open source.http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php

I asked about the Apache license.

> The Apache license has just one restriction that has some of my customers worried:

Your customers are Nervous Nellies.

Um, IMHO.

> If you have a NOTICE in your software and made a derivitive work from any Apache code you have
> to mention Apache in that notice.http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2..0.html
> A comparable advertising restriction was in the original license from BSD as well,
> but was deleted in 1999. Hence the name

They're not comparable at all. The BSD license referred to
advertising, as you mention; the Apache license does not. There is no
requirement in the Apache license to mention Apache in your
advertising. All you have to do is put copyright attributions (*not*
advertisements) in the NOTICE file and source code of your
application. They don't have to appear in the application interface,
splash screen or anywhere else but in the copyright notices. The BSD
license is similar in this respect - "Redistributions of source code
must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
the following disclaimer." Tomayto, tomahto.

<http://www.apache.org/licenses/>
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php>

> I use some open source software in products I create for my customers. After I leave
> they should be able to extend or alter the work I have done or the open source software it relies on,
> without being required to release it as open source or advertise other organisations, not even my own.

Again, the Apache license does not say anything whatsoever about
advertising; it does not impose any restrictions or requirements that
the copyright holder be mentioned in advertising.

> Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Apache, they have some great stuff out there and I use it regularly.
> If I need to fix something in their code I will supply it back to them for possible commitment in future releases.
> For my customers it is a different matter. They cannot derive works of it, without complying to the notice
> part of the license, or supplying it back to Apache. Something they might not be willing to do.

There is absolutely no requirement in the Apache license to submit
work back to the copyright holder, much less Apache. Wherever did you
get that notion?

It's your choice, but personally I don't see the problem with
requiring that copyright notices include the copyright information
from all copyright holders. It's hardly a marketing question, and
barely a restriction. After all, you're requiring that with the BSD
license, too. With respect to copyright attribution, there's hardly
any difference between the Apache license and the BSD or MIT licenses.

Why are you even open-sourcing your software given your concerns?

--
Lew


From: dennis on 23 Mar 2010 12:11
Hi Lew,

I found your response a bit strange. This were all answers to questions you yourself asked ?

>Your customers are Nervous Nellies.
>Um, IMHO.
No actually they are not. Some are actually very good at taking risks. The ones that make them a profit. Some of them might have legal departments that spell any license agreement. I even have customers who contractually bind you to the fact that they will not accept any liability coming from licenses.

>They're not comparable at all. The BSD license referred to
>advertising, as you mention; the Apache license does not. There is no
>requirement in the Apache license to mention Apache in your
>advertising.

Sorry, I created a bit of confusion here. I used advertise in the sense of make public. Both Apache and the old BSD license require you to make public that you use a derivitive of their work. Granted the old BSD license went much further.

>They don't have to appear in the application interface,
>splash screen or anywhere else but in the copyright notices.

This is what 4.4 of the Apache license says: "within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear." How would you interpret this, knowing most of my customers will not release the source code?

>The BSD license is similar in this respect - "Redistributions of source code
>must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
>the following disclaimer." Tomayto, tomahto.
It is not that similar, because the modified BSD only refers to source code. The Apache license extends this towards generated code as well.

>There is absolutely no requirement in the Apache license to submit
>work back to the copyright holder, much less Apache. Wherever did you
>get that notion?
I don't have the notion that this is required. I just described what I do when I alter open source code of any license. I try to give it back, so it might be included in future releases for everyone to enjoy.

>Why are you even open-sourcing your software given your concerns?
I don't have any concerns. I answered your question on why I use one license instead of another. I use open source while it helps to build more efficient applications, having more time to focus on what is specific for that project. It helps to improve the more general code those projects rely on by having it used more widely, scrutenized, adapted and improved by everyone who uses it and will share.
From www.brains2b.org: "By supplying this software as open source I hope it will prevent some 'reinventing of the wheel' that still seems very customary in software development. You will find different components you can use in your own projects that will hopefully save time and effort and can be adapted for your own needs. Next to this there are some applications I have written and are just handy, or fun and would otherwise be collecting dust."

Regards,
Dennis..
From: Lew on 23 Mar 2010 13:16
dennis wrote:
> I found your response a bit strange. This were all answers to questions you yourself asked ?
>

I cannot parse that question, if question it is. What are you asking?

My response was "strange" only insofar as it corrected misinformation
from your post.

Lew wrote:
>> They don't have to appear in the application interface,
>> splash screen or anywhere else but in the copyright notices.  
>

dennis wrote:
> This is what 4.4 of the Apache license says: "within the Source form or documentation,
> if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the
> Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear." How would
> you interpret this, knowing most of my customers will not release the source code?
>

I "interpret this" as saying exactly what it says, "... if and
wherever such third-party notices normally appear." If your splash
screen doesn't display copyright information, Apache license doesn't
require to put all the upstream copyright notices.

This is not different from what I said, "They don't have to appear ...
anywhere else but in the copyright notices." I don't know why anyone
objects to displaying copyright notices from the copyright holder(s);
that's what copyright is for. There's a word for using copyrighted
material without acknowledging the copyright: plagiarism.

Lew wrote:
>> The BSD license is similar in this respect - "Redistributions of source code
>> must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
>> the following disclaimer."  Tomayto, tomahto.
>

dennis wrote:
> It is not that similar, because the modified BSD only refers to source code.
> The Apache license extends this towards generated code as well.
>

No, it extends it to generated copyright notices. Nowhere does it
discuss placing copyright notices in generated code. You are
spreading misinformation about the Apache license.

Lew wrote:
>> There is absolutely no requirement in the Apache license to submit
>> work back to the copyright holder, much less Apache.  Wherever did you
>> get that notion?
>

dennis wrote:
> I don't have the notion that this is required.
>

That contradicts what you said. You said,
> They [your customers] cannot derive works of it, without complying to the notice
> part of the license, or supplying it back to Apache.
> Something they might not be willing to do.
>

Naturally I wondered why you thought the Apache license required that
"they ... supply... it back to Apache."

Lew wrote:
>> Why are you even open-sourcing your software given your concerns?
>

dennis wrote:
> I don't have any concerns. I answered your question on why I use one license instead of another.
>

So despite what you said, you are not concerned that your customers
have to display the copyright notices of copyright holders?

It's hard to discuss a subject with someone who shifts their ground on
every point when a counterpoint or question is raised.

I see no purpose in discussing this with you further.

--
Lew


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Applet UpCall from JS Event - Which Thread?
Next: eclipselink @table annotation