Apache License v2.0

Sat Sep 27 15:32:14 UTC 2008

Arthur Tam asked:

However, back to my question
is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)

Getting back to your question about the Apache License 2.0: As one of the
attorneys for the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), I can vouch for all
software it distributes under its license. All of ASF's open source software
includes source code which is available for free download. [See
www.apache.org <http://www.apache.org/> ] 

If some other company were to apply the Apache License 2.0 to their own
software but then not actually provide you with source code to that
software, that's not open source as I understand it. I've never known an
open source company to charge an "unreasonable" fee for source code to their
own open source software. Whether you have standing to sue in court to
demand the source code "for free" is a separate question I would almost
certainly not try to answer publicly here.

/Larry

bcc: Apache legal-discuss list

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243

Skype: LawrenceRosen

Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 

                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

  _____  

From: Arthur Tam [mailto:arthur_tam2004 at yahoo.com.hk] 
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:32 PM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0

Dear Lawrence Rosen,

Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)

Rgds,
Arthur

John Cowan wrote:
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> 
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.

Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means. 

For OSL 3.0, "Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the
Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work
that Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the
Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, §4]

So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the source
code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own license
and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
actually get the source code!]

With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes a
*Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [§1(c), §4]

As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a licensee
who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave that
interpretation for the FSF to write. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
> To: Arthur Tam
> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
> 
> Arthur Tam scripsit:
> 
> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
> 
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> 
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.
> 
> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD.  #1 and #3-#10
> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license".  But #2 says that if the
> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
> source.  So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
> and #3-#10.  If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
> 
> --
> A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
<http://www.ccil.org/%7Ecowan> 
>         The cause of his sorrow                 cowan at ccil.org
>         Was para-dichloro-
> Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080927/4d633238/attachment.html>