I've never use an Apache licensed javascript library before so bear
with this question, and I couldn't find clear answers by searching, so
I figured I ask in the forum first.
Since the Apache License requires redistributing the License notice
with the software, how do I comply with this with autobahn.js in the
browser? This seems pretty odd to me.
First, thanks for taking care! We need to look into this. The Apache license was chosen since it's the license for the Python code as well, makes sense at least there. Rest assured: we find a workable, pragmatic solution for JS also. Should that require a license change (like i.e. to MIT/GPL duo like jQuery), so be it. I'll report as soon is we have checked ..
> I've never use an Apache licensed javascript library before so bear > with this question, and I couldn't find clear answers by searching, so > I figured I ask in the forum first.
> Since the Apache License requires redistributing the License notice > with the software, how do I comply with this with autobahn.js in the > browser? This seems pretty odd to me.
I emailed the Apache foundation to clarify this and received the response below which does not answer the question as to whether visiting a website and downloading a javascript file constitutes redistribution. Ted Husted seems to imply the intent of the license is for wholesale source redistribution, but does not say serving js from your server is not redistribution:
Thank you for your inquiry.
The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to distribution of the code to another party. If someone were distributing the source code for an entire website code to a third party, who might then install the same website somewhere else, then redistribution terms would certainly apply.
We do not provide legal advice relating to your use of Apache software. We do suggest that you contact legal counsel in your jurisdiction if you have questions, since the use or distribution of any copyrighted software can have important implications for you and your business.
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact the Legal Discussion mailing list.
All software and documentation from the Apache Software Foundation is distributed to the public at no charge under the terms of the Apache License 2.0. That license, and the FAQ that describes the license in context, are available at http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Conway, Nicholas J
<Nick.Con...@wyss.harvard.edu> wrote: > If I include an Apache licensed javascript library on a public website > how do I satisfy Item 4, "Redistribution" for whenever someone visits > the site they will get a copy of the javascript source necessarily, > but Item 4 says I need to distribute a copy of the entire LICENSE and > the NOTICE file with it?
> I read the phrase of from 4.4 pertaining to the NOTICE, "or within a > display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such > third-party notices normally appear." meaning that this is optional > due to inclusion of the word "if", but I could include the NOTICE in > whole on a hyperlinked page? But what about the LICENSE?
<tobias.oberst...@gmail.com> wrote: > First, thanks for taking care! We need to look into this. The Apache > license was chosen since it's the license for the Python code as > well, makes sense at least there. Rest assured: we find a workable, > pragmatic solution for JS also. Should that require a license change (like > i.e. to MIT/GPL duo like jQuery), so be it. I'll report as soon is we have > checked ..
> \Tobias
> Am 06.03.2012 19:55, schrieb Nick:
>> I've never use an Apache licensed javascript library before so bear >> with this question, and I couldn't find clear answers by searching, so >> I figured I ask in the forum first.
>> Since the Apache License requires redistributing the License notice >> with the software, how do I comply with this with autobahn.js in the >> browser? This seems pretty odd to me.
- we are fine as long as you leave that header intact in the JS file
- the header contains a link to the Apache license, and for us this is enough to fulfill the requirement (should there be one) of "distribution of license"
- no need to provide a separate download, link or a rendering of the license in the UI of your browser app
- disclaimer (I need to do that): above is not a legally binding interpretation of the Apache license
I hope above is sufficient for you, Cheers, \Tobias
Quoted from Alex's research:
""" We cannot give a binding interpretation of the Apache license. With that caveat in mind, here is what we think is the case regarding using Apache-licensed Javascript libraries that are downloaded to visitors' browsers:
Regarding the redistribution, the Apache foundation stated: "The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to distribution of the code to another party. If someone were distributing the source code for an entire website code to a third party, who might then install the same website somewhere else, then redistribution terms would certainly apply." This to me implies that client-side downloads of javascript which occurs during the use of the website is not counted as redistribution. Without an express statement to that effect, I would not count on it, however. After all, the entire Javascript is downloaded.
So it is best to fulfill the obligations from article 4 of the license that come with redistribution. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 really aren't problematic in the context of using autobahn.js: A notice of changes to the file needs to be prominent, but not verbose: any short notice at the head of the file suffices. (4.2) The notices we provide within the javascript file itself are minimal, and do not present any significant overhead. (4.3) There is no separate notice file, so anything in 4.4 is moot.
So what it comes down to in the end is just 4.1.: the copy of the Apache license. While on the face of it this seems to be unambigous, I really think we need to take into consideration both the intention of provision 4.1 and the facts of modern life: 4.1 is intended to ensure access to the license. For Javascript delivered as part of a webpage, we can safely assume the presence of an internet connection, so access to a copy of the Apache license is not a problem if there is a link to it. The Apache foundation itself, in its sample notice (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html, bottom of the page), only gives a link, and does not make any mention of something to the tune of "a copy of this license is provided with this work". This notice is intended for any kind of work, not just for internet-connected ones. This fits well with current practices on the web (as e.g. summarized in this article on the entire issue: http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/opensourcesoftware/license-... people just provide a link, not the license itself.
To sum it up: If it is redistrubution, then a header in the javascript file stating that the javascript is under the Apache license and linking to the license should be enough. There really isn't any need to distribute the license in full with the file.
Alexander G dde Intellectual Property Professional
> I emailed the Apache foundation to clarify this and received the > response below which does not answer the question as to whether > visiting a website and downloading a javascript file constitutes > redistribution. Ted Husted seems to imply the intent of the license > is for wholesale source redistribution, but does not say serving js > from your server is not redistribution:
> Thank you for your inquiry.
> The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to > distribution of the code to another party. If someone were > distributing the source code for an entire website code to a third > party, who might then install the same website somewhere else, then > redistribution terms would certainly apply.
> We do not provide legal advice relating to your use of Apache > software. We do suggest that you contact legal counsel in your > jurisdiction if you have questions, since the use or distribution of > any copyrighted software can have important implications for you and > your business.
> If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact the Legal > Discussion mailing list.
> All software and documentation from the Apache Software Foundation is > distributed to the public at no charge under the terms of the Apache > License 2.0. That license, and the FAQ that describes the license in > context, are available at http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Conway, Nicholas J > <Nick.Con...@wyss.harvard.edu> wrote: >> If I include an Apache licensed javascript library on a public website >> how do I satisfy Item 4, "Redistribution" for whenever someone visits >> the site they will get a copy of the javascript source necessarily, >> but Item 4 says I need to distribute a copy of the entire LICENSE and >> the NOTICE file with it?
>> I read the phrase of from 4.4 pertaining to the NOTICE, "or within a >> display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such >> third-party notices normally appear." meaning that this is optional >> due to inclusion of the word "if", but I could include the NOTICE in >> whole on a hyperlinked page? But what about the LICENSE?
>> -Nick
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Tobias Oberstein > <tobias.oberst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> First, thanks for taking care! We need to look into this. The Apache >> license was chosen since it's the license for the Python code as >> well, makes sense at least there. Rest assured: we find a workable, >> pragmatic solution for JS also. Should that require a license change (like >> i.e. to MIT/GPL duo like jQuery), so be it. I'll report as soon is we have >> checked ..
>> \Tobias
>> Am 06.03.2012 19:55, schrieb Nick:
>>> I've never use an Apache licensed javascript library before so bear >>> with this question, and I couldn't find clear answers by searching, so >>> I figured I ask in the forum first.
>>> Since the Apache License requires redistributing the License notice >>> with the software, how do I comply with this with autobahn.js in the >>> browser? This seems pretty odd to me.
As far as the NOTICE file goes, I saw the file in 'Autobahn / lib / python / NOTICE' and so I will assume that the javascript library is considered a separate project from the python library despite being in the same git repository.
Autobahn is a great project and I've had a great time using it so far, and thanks Tobias for helping me make sure I'm in compliance.
> - we are fine as long as you leave that header intact in the JS file
> - the header contains a link to the Apache license, and for us > this is enough to fulfill the requirement (should there be one) > of "distribution of license"
> - no need to provide a separate download, link or a rendering of > the license in the UI of your browser app
> - disclaimer (I need to do that): above is not a legally binding > interpretation of the Apache license
> I hope above is sufficient for you, > Cheers, > \Tobias
> Quoted from Alex's research:
> """ > We cannot give a binding interpretation of the Apache license. > With that caveat in mind, here is what we think is the case regarding using > Apache-licensed Javascript libraries that are downloaded to visitors' > browsers:
> Regarding the redistribution, the Apache foundation stated:
> "The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to > distribution of the code to another party. If someone were distributing the > source code for an entire website code to a third party, who might then > install the same website somewhere else, then redistribution terms would > certainly apply." > This to me implies that client-side downloads of javascript which occurs > during the use of the website is not counted as redistribution. > Without an express statement to that effect, I would not count on it, > however. After all, the entire Javascript is downloaded.
> So it is best to fulfill the obligations from article 4 of the license that > come with redistribution. > 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 really aren't problematic in the context of using > autobahn.js: > A notice of changes to the file needs to be prominent, but not verbose: any > short notice at the head of the file suffices. (4.2) > The notices we provide within the javascript file itself are minimal, and do > not present any significant overhead. (4.3) > There is no separate notice file, so anything in 4.4 is moot.
> So what it comes down to in the end is just 4.1.: the copy of the Apache > license. > While on the face of it this seems to be unambigous, I really think we need > to take into consideration both the intention of provision 4.1 and the facts > of modern life: > 4.1 is intended to ensure access to the license. For Javascript delivered as > part of a webpage, we can safely assume the presence of an internet > connection, so access to a copy of the Apache license is not a problem if > there is a link to it. > The Apache foundation itself, in its sample notice > (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html, bottom of the page), only > gives a link, and does not make any mention of something to the tune of "a > copy of this license is provided with this work". This notice is intended > for any kind of work, not just for internet-connected ones. > This fits well with current practices on the web (as e.g. summarized in this > article on the entire issue: > http://www.iusmentis.com/computerprograms/opensourcesoftware/license-... > people just provide a link, not the license itself.
> To sum it up: If it is redistrubution, then a header in the javascript file > stating that the javascript is under the Apache license and linking to the > license should be enough. There really isn't any need to distribute the > license in full with the file.
> Alexander Gödde > Intellectual Property Professional
>> I emailed the Apache foundation to clarify this and received the >> response below which does not answer the question as to whether >> visiting a website and downloading a javascript file constitutes >> redistribution. Ted Husted seems to imply the intent of the license >> is for wholesale source redistribution, but does not say serving js >> from your server is not redistribution:
>> Thank you for your inquiry.
>> The notification terms of the Apache License are meant to apply to >> distribution of the code to another party. If someone were >> distributing the source code for an entire website code to a third >> party, who might then install the same website somewhere else, then >> redistribution terms would certainly apply.
>> We do not provide legal advice relating to your use of Apache >> software. We do suggest that you contact legal counsel in your >> jurisdiction if you have questions, since the use or distribution of >> any copyrighted software can have important implications for you and >> your business.
>> If you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact the Legal >> Discussion mailing list.
>> All software and documentation from the Apache Software Foundation is >> distributed to the public at no charge under the terms of the Apache >> License 2.0. That license, and the FAQ that describes the license in >> context, are available at http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Conway, Nicholas J >> <Nick.Con...@wyss.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>> If I include an Apache licensed javascript library on a public website >>> how do I satisfy Item 4, "Redistribution" for whenever someone visits >>> the site they will get a copy of the javascript source necessarily, >>> but Item 4 says I need to distribute a copy of the entire LICENSE and >>> the NOTICE file with it?
>>> I read the phrase of from 4.4 pertaining to the NOTICE, "or within a >>> display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such >>> third-party notices normally appear." meaning that this is optional >>> due to inclusion of the word "if", but I could include the NOTICE in >>> whole on a hyperlinked page? But what about the LICENSE?
>>> -Nick
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Tobias Oberstein >> <tobias.oberst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> First, thanks for taking care! We need to look into this. The Apache >>> license was chosen since it's the license for the Python code as >>> well, makes sense at least there. Rest assured: we find a workable, >>> pragmatic solution for JS also. Should that require a license change >>> (like >>> i.e. to MIT/GPL duo like jQuery), so be it. I'll report as soon is we >>> have >>> checked ..
>>> \Tobias
>>> Am 06.03.2012 19:55, schrieb Nick:
>>>> I've never use an Apache licensed javascript library before so bear >>>> with this question, and I couldn't find clear answers by searching, so >>>> I figured I ask in the forum first.
>>>> Since the Apache License requires redistributing the License notice >>>> with the software, how do I comply with this with autobahn.js in the >>>> browser? This seems pretty odd to me.
> As far as the NOTICE file goes, I saw the file in 'Autobahn / lib / > python / NOTICE' and so I will assume that the javascript library is > considered a separate project from the python library despite being in > the same git repository.
Yep, thats right. Just to make that explicit:
The Autobahn/lib/python/NOTICE file belongs to the Python library and only to that. [It is there, because it's good practice .. in particular with Python packages].
Consider
Autobahn/lib/javascript/.. (there is only 1 files there currently)
effectively a separate project. It's there, since I did not want to create a separate Git repo just for 1 file. Convenience/technical.
> Autobahn is a great project and I've had a great time using it so far, > and thanks Tobias for helping me make sure I'm in compliance.
You are welcome;)
Thanks again for taking care with such details, \Tobias
