[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 4

Mon Feb 8 15:44:58 UTC 2021

Stuart,

This is Gustavo G Mármol from Buenos Aires, Argentina. My pleasure to meet
you by e-mail.

You´ve mentioned that "Disney has been using a modified Apache license to
release software and that the Company has not yet sought OSI recognition of
this modification". Would you mind sharing, if possible, the change of
position in this regard? That is, so far Disney decided to use the Apache
License with modifications without trying to create and seek approval of a
new license by the OSI, I interpret, due to your mail to the OSI list that
today that has changed. Is it possible that you can comment on it?

Thanks,

Best regards,
Gustavo G Marmol Alioto.

El dom, 7 feb 2021 a las 1:07, <license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org>
escribió:

> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Modified Apache License (Langley, Stuart)
>    2. Re: Modified Apache License (McCoy Smith)
>    3. Re: Modified Apache License (Russell Nelson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:47:54 +0000
> From: "Langley, Stuart" <Stuart.Langley at disney.com>
> To: "license-discuss at lists.opensource.org"
>         <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CY4PR03MB27608C2C6508764EF125DE94F6B19 at CY4PR03MB2760.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello all, this is my first attempt at posting something new so we'll see
> how it goes.
>
> Disney has been using a modified Apache license to release software.  We
> have not yet sought OSI recognition of this modification.  I've been
> hesitant to present this for consideration because the modifications are so
> minor.  The concern is that the Apache 2.0 is too ambiguous for our taste
> about trademark rights.  The modified language is:
>
> Amending Apache license language &  file headers. New text: Copyright 20XX
> <INSERT BUSINESS ENTITY>Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
> "Apache License")with the following modification; you may not use this file
> except incompliance with the Apache License and the following modification
> to it:
> Section 6. Trademarks. is deleted and replaced with:6.   Trademarks. This
> License does not grant permission to use the tradenames, trademarks,
> service marks, or   product names of the Licensor and its affiliates,
> except as   required to   comply with Section 4(c) of the License and to
>  reproduce the content of the NOTICE file. You may obtain a  copy of   the
> Apache License athttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0Unless
> required by   applicable law or   agreed to in   writing, software
> distributed under the Apache License with the above modification is
> distributed on   an   "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR   CONDITIONS OF
> ANYKIND, either express or   implied. See the Apache License for the
> specific language governing permissions and limitations under the Apache
> License.
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts.  The distinction about trademarks is
> important to us, and should be to others who are concerned about losing
> control of their trademarks to "reasonable and customary" use allowed by
> Apache 2.0.  Would a license like this be a valuable enough distinction
> from Apache 2.0 to merit a separate license?
>
> Stuart T. Langley
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210206/62476987/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 17:29:36 -0800
> From: "McCoy Smith" <mccoy at lexpan.law>
> To: <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
> Message-ID: <026401d6fcf0$b27d3930$1777ab90$@lexpan.law>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> You probably want to explain the rationale for your changes in the
> language,
> which in redline would look like this:
>
> 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
> names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and its
> affiliates, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
> describing the origin of the Work to comply with Section 4(c) of the
> License
> and to reproduce reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
>
>
>
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Langley, Stuart
> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 3:48 PM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
>
>
>
> Hello all, this is my first attempt at posting something new so we'll see
> how it goes.
>
>
>
> Disney has been using a modified Apache license to release software.  We
> have not yet sought OSI recognition of this modification.  I've been
> hesitant to present this for consideration because the modifications are so
> minor.  The concern is that the Apache 2.0 is too ambiguous for our taste
> about trademark rights.  The modified language is:
>
>
>
> Amending Apache license language &  file headers. New text: Copyright 20XX
> <INSERT BUSINESS ENTITY>Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
> "Apache License")with the following modification; you may not use this file
> except incompliance with the Apache License and the following modification
> to it:
>
> Section 6. Trademarks. is deleted and replaced with:6.   Trademarks. This
> License does not grant permission to use the tradenames, trademarks,
> service
> marks, or   product names of the Licensor and its affiliates, except as
> required to   comply with Section 4(c) of the License and to   reproduce
> the
> content of the NOTICE file. You may obtain a  copy of   the Apache License
> athttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0Unless required by
>  applicable
> law or   agreed to in   writing, software distributed under the Apache
> License with the above modification is distributed on   an   "AS IS" BASIS,
> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR   CONDITIONS OF ANYKIND, either express or   implied.
> See the Apache License for the specific language governing permissions and
> limitations under the Apache License.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts.  The distinction about trademarks is
> important to us, and should be to others who are concerned about losing
> control of their trademarks to "reasonable and customary" use allowed by
> Apache 2.0.  Would a license like this be a valuable enough distinction
> from
> Apache 2.0 to merit a separate license?
>
>
>
> Stuart T. Langley
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210206/fefca8be/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:06:32 -0500
> From: Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
> Message-ID: <4a87c9da-5745-6111-40eb-7a69c0e35851 at crynwr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Further, since this seems a reasonable change, why not present it to
> Apache as a friendly amendment and see if they want to make it into an
> Apache 2.1 license? I mean, if it's good for Disney, why wouldn't it be
> good for everyone else?
> -russ
>
> On 2/6/21 8:29 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> >
> > You probably want to explain the rationale for your changes in the
> > language, which in redline would look like this:
> >
> > 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
> > names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and
> > its affiliates, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
> > describing the origin of the Work to comply with Section 4(c) of the
> > License and to reproduce reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
> >
> > *From:*License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> > *On Behalf Of *Langley, Stuart
> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 6, 2021 3:48 PM
> > *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > *Subject:* [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
> >
> > Hello all, this is my first attempt at posting something new so we?ll
> > see how it goes.
> >
> > Disney has been using a modified Apache license to release software.?
> > We have not yet sought OSI recognition of this modification.? I?ve
> > been hesitant to present this for consideration because the
> > modifications are so minor.? The concern is that the Apache 2.0 is too
> > ambiguous for our taste about trademark rights.? The modified language
> is:
> >
> > *Amending Apache license language &? file headers. New text: Copyright
> > 20XX <INSERT BUSINESS ENTITY>Licensed under the Apache License,
> > Version 2.0 (the "Apache License")with the following modification; you
> > may not use this file except incompliance with the Apache License and
> > the following modification to it: *
> >
> > *Section 6. Trademarks. is deleted and replaced with:6. Trademarks.
> > This License does not grant permission to use the tradenames,
> > trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and its
> > affiliates, except as?? required to?? comply with Section 4(c) of the
> > License and to?? reproduce the content of the NOTICE file. You may
> > obtain a? copy of?? the Apache License
> > athttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0Unless required by??
> > applicable law or?? agreed to in writing, software distributed under
> > the Apache License with the above modification is distributed on??
> > an?? "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR?? CONDITIONS OF ANYKIND,
> > either express or?? implied. See the Apache License for the specific
> > language governing permissions and limitations under the Apache License.*
> >
> > I would appreciate your thoughts.? The distinction about trademarks is
> > important to us, and should be to others who are concerned about
> > losing control of their trademarks to ?reasonable and customary? use
> > allowed by Apache 2.0.? Would a license like this be a valuable enough
> > distinction from Apache 2.0 to merit a separate license?
> >
> > Stuart T. Langley
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> >
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210206/a8167f24/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 104, Issue 4
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210208/ff2120a4/attachment-0001.html>