Subject: RE: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
From: "Radcliffe, Mark" <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:05:41 -0800
Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:05:41 -0800


Our intention was the first alternative. The provision will be included
as part of Exhibit B to a license based on MPL, but with a different
name given Section 6.3 of the MPL. License discuss has rejected the
approach of a "general" attribution clause and believes that such a
provision needs to tied to a specific license. 


                                

	From: Mitchell Baker [mailto:mitchell@mozilla.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:24 PM
	To: Radcliffe, Mark
	Cc: David Woolley; license-discuss@opensource.org
	Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to
real MPL)
	
	
	Hi Mark
	
	A helpful summary, thanks!
	One question:  below you say:  
	
	We
	are revising the attribution provision and Socialtext will be
submitting
	it as part of the MPL.
	By "as part of the MPL" do you mean you will submit a new
license which is the MPL plus an attribution clause under a different
name?  Or do you mean you will submit a revised attribution clause for
use with the MPL?  
	
	If the latter, sounds great.  If the former, that seems less
than ideal, as it creates another license.  If there is a general
attribution clause that is OSI compliant when used with or as part of
the MPL, then I'm certainly open to making it an opt-in part of the MPL.
The former solution is probably quicker, and might preceed the latter in
any case. 
	
	Mitchell
	
	Radcliffe, Mark wrote: 

		Since I assisted Ross with the submission to OSI, I
think the list
		should be aware that the submission was meant to get an
attribution
		provision approved that would work in a variety of
circumstances to
		avoid numerous licenses with slightly different
"attribution"
		provisions. Our goal was to get a standard approach
rather than having
		each company submit a different version of attribution
(please note that
		the SugarCRM attribution provision varies from Zimbra
attribution
		provision). Since virtually all OSI approved licenses do
not permit
		modifications, we thought that the number of licenses
that would be
		effected would be small and this approach was the best
for the industry.
		Clearly based on the comments, this approach does not
have support. We
		are revising the attribution provision and Socialtext
will be submitting
		it as part of the MPL.
		
		The submission will include significant additional
changes to
		attribution provision to reflect the other concerns
expressed on the
		list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful
in focusing us on
		the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who
contributed to it.
		
		The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other
companies have adopted
		the draft attribution provision is that they do not want
to repeatedly
		change their license. It creates both legal and
practical problems if
		you only use a license for a couple of months. If the
license is
		approved by OSI, they will have a strong incentive to
adopt it. It will
		also avoid increasing the problem of license
proliferation. 
		
		We expect to submit the new version next week. I have
asked the OSI
		Board to delay a review of the GAP since it is no longer
being
		considered by Socialtext.
		
		I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes
about my role
		in OSI and attribution:
		
		1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which
was released in
		October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to
be General
		Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General
Counsel in December,
		2004 and was appointed in January 2005.
		
		2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a
position on
		attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice
on attribution
		is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the
AAL had already
		been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI
had already
		approved an attribution based license. I have been very
open with the
		Board from the beginning about my role in developing
attribution and my
		belief that it is consistent with the OSD.
		
		3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of
Committee C
		reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other
words, for free. In
		fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal
services at no
		charge  to the open source community through our work
with the OSI and
		the FSF.
		
		
		-----Original Message-----
		From: David Woolley [mailto:david@djwhome.demon.co.uk] 
		Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:18 PM
		To: license-discuss@opensource.org
		Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further
(Exhibit B to real MPL)
		
		  

			2.  It's OSI that is being slow on the
attribution debate, not the
			companies.  A license has been submitted.  The
ball is in OSI's court.
			    

		As
		
		No licence has been validly submitted.  Either it wasn't
announced on
		this
		mailing list, or you are referring to the out of context
clauses
		
		<font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000">
		This is Global Environment Week at DLA Piper.<br>
		For information, please visit <a
href="http://www.dlapiper.com/sustainability"
<http://www.dlapiper.com/sustainability> > <font
color="#008000">www.dlapiper.com/sustainability</font></a><br>
		Please consider the environment before printing this
email.</font>
		
	
                                                                        
             
		
		The information contained in this email may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not
an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact
our email administrator directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com
		
		Thank you.
	
                                                                        
             
		  




<font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000">
This is Global Environment Week at DLA Piper.<br>
For information, please visit <a href="http://www.dlapiper.com/sustainability"> <font
color="#008000">www.dlapiper.com/sustainability</font></a><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font>

                                                                                   
 

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged.
It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this
message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication,
or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com

Thank you.
                                                                                   
 

Our intention was the first alternative. The provision will be included as part of Exhibit B to a license based on MPL, but with a different name given Section 6.3 of the MPL. License discuss has rejected the approach of a "general" attribution clause and believes that such a provision needs to tied to a specific license.


From: Mitchell Baker [mailto:mitchell@mozilla.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:24 PM
To: Radcliffe, Mark
Cc: David Woolley; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Hi Mark

A helpful summary, thanks!
One question:  below you say: 
We
are revising the attribution provision and Socialtext will be submitting
it as part of the MPL.
By "as part of the MPL" do you mean you will submit a new license which is the MPL plus an attribution clause under a different name?  Or do you mean you will submit a revised attribution clause for use with the MPL? 

If the latter, sounds great.  If the former, that seems less than ideal, as it creates another license.  If there is a general attribution clause that is OSI compliant when used with or as part of the MPL, then I'm certainly open to making it an opt-in part of the MPL.   The former solution is probably quicker, and might preceed the latter in any case.

Mitchell

Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
Since I assisted Ross with the submission to OSI, I think the list
should be aware that the submission was meant to get an attribution
provision approved that would work in a variety of circumstances to
avoid numerous licenses with slightly different "attribution"
provisions. Our goal was to get a standard approach rather than having
each company submit a different version of attribution (please note that
the SugarCRM attribution provision varies from Zimbra attribution
provision). Since virtually all OSI approved licenses do not permit
modifications, we thought that the number of licenses that would be
effected would be small and this approach was the best for the industry.
Clearly based on the comments, this approach does not have support. We
are revising the attribution provision and Socialtext will be submitting
it as part of the MPL.

The submission will include significant additional changes to
attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the
list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful in focusing us on
the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who contributed to it.

The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other companies have adopted
the draft attribution provision is that they do not want to repeatedly
change their license. It creates both legal and practical problems if
you only use a license for a couple of months. If the license is
approved by OSI, they will have a strong incentive to adopt it. It will
also avoid increasing the problem of license proliferation. 

We expect to submit the new version next week. I have asked the OSI
Board to delay a review of the GAP since it is no longer being
considered by Socialtext.

I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes about my role
in OSI and attribution:

1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which was released in
October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to be General
Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General Counsel in December,
2004 and was appointed in January 2005.

2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a position on
attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice on attribution
is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the AAL had already
been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI had already
approved an attribution based license. I have been very open with the
Board from the beginning about my role in developing attribution and my
belief that it is consistent with the OSD.

3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of Committee C
reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other words, for free. In
fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal services at no
charge  to the open source community through our work with the OSI and
the FSF.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Woolley [mailto:david@djwhome.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:18 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

  
2.  It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the
companies.  A license has been submitted.  The ball is in OSI's court.
    
As

No licence has been validly submitted.  Either it wasn't announced on
this
mailing list, or you are referring to the out of context clauses

<font face="Arial" size="2" color="#008000">
This is Global Environment Week at DLA Piper.<br>
For information, please visit <a href="http://www.dlapiper.com/sustainability"> <font color="#008000">www.dlapiper.com/sustainability</font></a><br>
Please consider the environment before printing this email.</font>

                                                                                     

The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com

Thank you.
                                                                                     
  


This is Global Environment Week at DLA Piper.

For information, please visit www.dlapiper.com/sustainability

Please consider the environment before printing this email.



The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To contact our email administrator directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com

Thank you.