ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Hunter <>
Subject Re: The Copyright dispute continues: com.oreilly....
Date Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:41:18 GMT
Tim O'Brien wrote:
> Humble opinion follows:

And is followed by yet another.  :-)

> 1. Jason Hunter has reserved all rights.  This begs the question, if you've
> reserved all rights what legal repercussions does this have on the
> contributions made by the Apache community?  The standard Apache license
> does not reserve all rights becuase this is not a restrictive commercial
> license.   Legally joint copyright owners are required to share any and all
> profits from the use of this code.  See

The sharing of profits is something I hadn't heard before.  That's quite
a nuisance.

> 2. "Updates should be done in conjunction with".  These classes
> were made to demonstrate servlets in Jason's Servlets book ( which is a
> great book ), but donating a source file to the Apache group which is tied
> to an external non-community project flies in the face of every other code
> donation.  What if someone wants to change the class in a way that conflicts
> with the interests of the maintainers of

I think the right thing to do is to intentionally fork.  Give copyright
on this particular version of the code to the ASF exclusively, but keep
copyright on the n-1 fork for my own use for (I revised it
some before the Apache check-in so this should fly nicely).  It's a
single class so forking ain't a big deal; I wouldn't advise this course
of action for anything much larger.  If I see something new in the
Apache version that I like, I can integrate it to my version thanks to
the Apache license with a thank you.  Tim, you seem well connected to
legal sites.  What are the URLs analyzing this plan?  :-)

> If Apache opens up the door for joint copyright ownership with Jason Hunter,
> what happens when IBM or Sun comes along and wants to donate code to the
> Apache project.  Could they point to the joint ownership as an option?  

That's a very interesting question and one that I'm glad this
contribution has raised, because I see reasons why a company might want
to do joint copyright.  The ASF is discussing this issue.

> IBM would reap the benefits of open source development, but reserve all rights
> for future use.  That turns us all into unpaid volunteers for IBM or Sun.

This I very much disagree with.  First, with the Apache license ANYONE
can use the code for ANY reason, so the copyright holder has no special
rights except avoidance of the acknowledgment clause.  Big deal really.

Second, most of the corporations open sourcing their existing products
these days are retaining copyright.  You need someone strong holding the
copyright to sue license violators and copyright infringers.  Trying to
take the code proprietary isn't very productive because it's already
open and on a good project the majority of the expertise will be out of


View raw message