[OFBiz] Dev - Change of License from MIT to Apache 2.0

[David E. Jones]

Forgot to mention in my other reply...

After we check on this if it is the case that this is an issue we'll  
have to be more careful about contributions in the future, and as far  
as the license change goes I see 2 options:

1. raise a HELL of a lot of money to get it done (who knows $20k,  
$100k? how much time will it take to review 500,000 lines of text and  
6000 commits, not to mention the early history that is not in the  
current SVN revision history...)

2. totally forget it until it blows up and all of us who have  
invested so much end up screwed...

Or perhaps there is another option I'm not seeing?

I guess there is one other option: abandon "The Open For Business  
Project" and do a complete re-write based on what we have all learned  
in this effort. Current users might be a bit upset as the migration  
path would be a bit difficult, but it would probably only take a few  
man-months to create a framework based on OFBiz but that is much  
cleaner because we wouldn't worry about legacy (backwards  
compatibility), and then re-write all of the business level logic,  
entity definitions, and so on.... Wow, sounding more tempting all the  
time... Might even be cheaper and easier than doing some sort of full  
copyright assignment assessment....

-David


On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Si Chen wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think that you can get an implicit assignment of copyright  
>> like
>> this, especially, given how long the project has been in  
>> existence, it
>> could be years after somebody had made their contribution.  This  
>> really
>> creates the opportunity for somebody later to say that (1) they  
>> made a
>> contribution, (2) stopped subscribing to the mailing list and  
>> visiting
>> the ofbiz.org-related sites, so (3) did not agree to it.  Then, if  
>> the
>> copyright header changed, they could say that you and whoever did a
>> project based on OFBiz violated this contirbutor's license grant  
>> under
>> the MIT PL.
>>
>
> This is a very huge point.  We absolutely *MUST* contact *EVERYONE*  
> who has
> ever submitted code to ofbiz.  Even if their submission was not  
> applied as is,
> if the final solution was based on their code, then they are part  
> of the
> copyright chain.
>
> This applies to all versions of the code, going back thru all  
> time.  This
> could have been avoided if there had been a copyright assignment in  
> the first
> place.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[cjhowe]

David,
I'm sure no one that has replied to this thread is
attempting in anyway to upset you.  They're simply
bringing up their lay assumptions on what this change
would entail.  And in actuality, it's not the change,
but the notion that the current version (svn or
otherwise) is infringing on some currently unnamed
contributor.  Intellectual Property Laws in America
(and most anywhere else) are insufficient to address
the complexity of present day situations.  Case law is
additionally insufficient.  The majority of the
licenses out there haven't been battle tested by a
court's decision and upheld in an appeal process.

To contribute my lay assumption (which is based on all
of 3 graduate level credit hours of B. Law which i
wrote an undefended thesis on bankruptcy as it
pertains to intellectual property, many hours of the
people's court and enjoyment of several court tv
dramas); there are really only a few questions you
must ask to address the practicality (as opposed to
the legality) of who holds the copyright of the
project.

1) is OFBiz a legal entity that can accept copyright
assignment? if OFBiz isn't a legal entity then who
would be infringing on someone else's copyright?  Any
other party I would think would fall under fair use.
2) would a contributor by not tacking on his name in
the licensing portion of his contributed work be
abandoning the ability to defend his copyright just as
an author who released a book as anonymous?
3) where there does exist credit to the author, have
any of the authors expressed a wish to retain control
of their work in anyway that conflicts with the idea
of the licensing OFBiz was originally released?
4) do any of those people have the resources and legal
knowledge to defend their copyright?
5) did anyone attempt to sub license a piece of work
that was contributed to the OFBiz project?

I would think OFBiz would hypothetically have greater
risk of IP infringement by having similar code to
other projects (I'm not saying I have first hand
knowledge of that, just the likelihood of converging
code practices being that the majority of the project
is standards based) than from direct contributors.



--- "David E. Jones" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Forgot to mention in my other reply...
>
> After we check on this if it is the case that this
> is an issue we'll  
> have to be more careful about contributions in the
> future, and as far  
> as the license change goes I see 2 options:
>
> 1. raise a HELL of a lot of money to get it done
> (who knows $20k,  
> $100k? how much time will it take to review 500,000
> lines of text and  
> 6000 commits, not to mention the early history that
> is not in the  
> current SVN revision history...)
>
> 2. totally forget it until it blows up and all of us
> who have  
> invested so much end up screwed...
>
> Or perhaps there is another option I'm not seeing?
>
> I guess there is one other option: abandon "The Open
> For Business  
> Project" and do a complete re-write based on what we
> have all learned  
> in this effort. Current users might be a bit upset
> as the migration  
> path would be a bit difficult, but it would probably
> only take a few  
> man-months to create a framework based on OFBiz but
> that is much  
> cleaner because we wouldn't worry about legacy
> (backwards  
> compatibility), and then re-write all of the
> business level logic,  
> entity definitions, and so on.... Wow, sounding more
> tempting all the  
> time... Might even be cheaper and easier than doing
> some sort of full  
> copyright assignment assessment....
>
> -David
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Si Chen wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't think that you can get an implicit
> assignment of copyright  
> >> like
> >> this, especially, given how long the project has
> been in  
> >> existence, it
> >> could be years after somebody had made their
> contribution.  This  
> >> really
> >> creates the opportunity for somebody later to say
> that (1) they  
> >> made a
> >> contribution, (2) stopped subscribing to the
> mailing list and  
> >> visiting
> >> the ofbiz.org-related sites, so (3) did not agree
> to it.  Then, if  
> >> the
> >> copyright header changed, they could say that you
> and whoever did a
> >> project based on OFBiz violated this
> contirbutor's license grant  
> >> under
> >> the MIT PL.
> >>
> >
> > This is a very huge point.  We absolutely *MUST*
> contact *EVERYONE*  
> > who has
> > ever submitted code to ofbiz.  Even if their
> submission was not  
> > applied as is,
> > if the final solution was based on their code,
> then they are part  
> > of the
> > copyright chain.
> >
> > This applies to all versions of the code, going
> back thru all  
> > time.  This
> > could have been avoided if there had been a
> copyright assignment in  
> > the first
> > place.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
>
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Adam Heath-2]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, David E. Jones wrote:

>
> Sorry, I'm not a lawyer but so far from what I've read this is
> ridiculous. If you modify a file with a copyright notice in it and
> you don't add your own copyright notice, how are not implying an
> assignment of copyright?
>
> I haven't read anything in ANY of the links submitted that would lead
> me to believe this. In fact, it seems that the opposite is true. Most
> acknowledge that doing this implies an assignment of copyright, but
> sometimes it's better to not take a chance.
>
> Is this really such a big deal? How many people feel uncomfortable
> with assigning the copyright of their contributions to "The Open For
> Business Project"? Is this a sentiment that has been a background
> issue that is just now surfacing?
>
> Forgive me if I sound insensitive, I'm just having a hard time
> fathoming this in any reality I've experienced....

I'm a Debian Developer.  We've had quite a bit of experience dealing with
various licenses and copyrights.  Our DFSG is the basis for the OSD.  It's
from this background that I said what I said.

However, I will admit that I am not fluent in all the details as to how a
large project can change it's license.  I do know it's not simple.
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[David E. Jones]

I guess you're referring to this:

http://www.debian.org/social_contract

It is an interesting document, and admirably seems quite consistent  
with how Debian is operated. I didn't such much there that plays into  
the specific issue of license change or implicit copyright  
assignment, but an interesting read nonetheless.

On the more general issue, perhaps you're right: for any reasonably  
sized project in general the changing of the license is tricky.

One nice thing about the Apache License, 2.0 is that the copyright  
assignment issue is made clear, which would avoid problems like this.

The biggest concern I have is not in how this relates to a change in  
license from MIT to Apache 2.0, but in how this would affect end-
users of OFBiz that are concerned about legal reprisals from their  
use of the software...

-David


On Sep 26, 2005, at 1:19 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, David E. Jones wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not a lawyer but so far from what I've read this is
>> ridiculous. If you modify a file with a copyright notice in it and
>> you don't add your own copyright notice, how are not implying an
>> assignment of copyright?
>>
>> I haven't read anything in ANY of the links submitted that would lead
>> me to believe this. In fact, it seems that the opposite is true. Most
>> acknowledge that doing this implies an assignment of copyright, but
>> sometimes it's better to not take a chance.
>>
>> Is this really such a big deal? How many people feel uncomfortable
>> with assigning the copyright of their contributions to "The Open For
>> Business Project"? Is this a sentiment that has been a background
>> issue that is just now surfacing?
>>
>> Forgive me if I sound insensitive, I'm just having a hard time
>> fathoming this in any reality I've experienced....
>>
>
> I'm a Debian Developer.  We've had quite a bit of experience  
> dealing with
> various licenses and copyrights.  Our DFSG is the basis for the  
> OSD.  It's
> from this background that I said what I said.
>
> However, I will admit that I am not fluent in all the details as to  
> how a
> large project can change it's license.  I do know it's not simple.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>

 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

[Adam Heath-2]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, David E. Jones wrote:

>
> I guess you're referring to this:
>
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract
>
> It is an interesting document, and admirably seems quite consistent
> with how Debian is operated. I didn't such much there that plays into
> the specific issue of license change or implicit copyright
> assignment, but an interesting read nonetheless.
>
> On the more general issue, perhaps you're right: for any reasonably
> sized project in general the changing of the license is tricky.

Unless there has been explicit assignment, then you must contact everyone.

Ean gave me a nice analogy.

Let's say you write a book.  Then, Borders carries the book, for selling.  You
are still the author of said book.  You do not give the copyright to borders;
it is still yours.  Borders is just the distribution channel.

The same can be applied for every little change applied to ofbiz.

In any event, even if the above is not entirely applicable, it's enough of a
problem that you want to do it right, and not take a chance.
 
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.ofbiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev