OpenSocial License and Copyright claims?

[Ate Douma]

Hi,

For Apache Shindig and Apache Rave (Incubating) I'm currently reviewing and
backtracking our legal obligations with respect to (re)distribution of
copyright, notice and license claims, and in this case concerning the OpenSocial
specification usage.

As Apache projects, we're providing and distribute our releases under the Apache
2.0 license (obviously) which requires us (section 4.c) to retain "all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of
the Work".

The OpenSocial spec as hosted on http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources
carries (only) the Apache 2.0 License, but nowhere is there any mentioning of
copyright, patent, trademark or any other attribution notices. At least none
that I can find.
And I can't find anything of that kind either on http://docs.opensocial.org

I can assume the OpenSocial Foundation does (or should want to) claim some form
of copyright on the specification, but without that being made explicit
*somewhere* (preferably then at least in context of the specification sources),
it is impossible for us to 'do the right thing'.

Right now, Apache Shindig does carry a license [1] which claims copyright by the
OpenSocial Foundation (c) 2009, but I have no way of verifying if that is
(still) correct or even valid as such.

I'm not sure this is the right channel to request input on this, or if
opensoci...@googlegroups.com would be better suited.
If so please let me know and I'll move my request for input there then.

Kind regards,

Ate Douma
Apache Rave PMC member

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/LICENSE

[Paul Lindner]

I believe that the supporting documentation you're looking for is here:

http://docs.opensocial.org/display/OSF/Home

Note that the original specification was distributed as javascript which was translated into jsdoc and published, which is why you see the mention in NOTICE.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:

Hi,

For Apache Shindig and Apache Rave (Incubating) I'm currently reviewing and backtracking our legal obligations with respect to (re)distribution of copyright, notice and license claims, and in this case concerning the OpenSocial specification usage.

As Apache projects, we're providing and distribute our releases under the Apache 2.0 license (obviously) which requires us (section 4.c) to retain "all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work".

The OpenSocial spec as hosted on http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources carries (only) the Apache 2.0 License, but nowhere is there any mentioning of copyright, patent, trademark or any other attribution notices. At least none that I can find.
And I can't find anything of that kind either on http://docs.opensocial.org

I can assume the OpenSocial Foundation does (or should want to) claim some form of copyright on the specification, but without that being made explicit *somewhere* (preferably then at least in context of the specification sources), it is impossible for us to 'do the right thing'.

Right now, Apache Shindig does carry a license [1] which claims copyright by the OpenSocial Foundation (c) 2009, but I have no way of verifying if that is (still) correct or even valid as such.

I'm not sure this is the right channel to request input on this, or if opensocial-board@googlegroups.com would be better suited.

If so please let me know and I'll move my request for input there then.

Kind regards,

Ate Douma
Apache Rave PMC member

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/LICENSE

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.

--
Paul Lindner -- lin...@inuus.com -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner

[Mark W.]

Ate,

Great to see everything's going well with Rave!!

If the link above does not provide the necessary information, I'm more than happy to work with you to make it easy to get what you need. Please let me know.

-Mark Weitzel

[Ate Douma]

Hi Mark,

I don't think the above link [1] provides the needed information yet.
What it does provide is AFAIK only information on the OpenSocial Foundation
'Intellectual Property Rights Policy', which I already did read.
That policy makes clear that *contributors* need to grant a copyright license to
the foundation, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute License 3.0.

Nowhere however can I find any copyright and license claim made by the
foundation *itself* on (primarily) the OpenSocial specification.

For Apache Shindig the current specifications since 0.9+ this doesn't seem that
important anymore, as Shindig only provides an implementation of the spec (which
should be free if I'm correct), it doesn't bundle/embed and/or redistribute the
spec itself as such.

However, Shindig also (and still) uses *and* bundles the 0.8 specification
javascript sources. Those carry the Apache 2 License, but without any specific
copyright claim, which then should also state the year(s) covered, nor any other
notice. And that is the concern of my question.

Furthermore, how does using the Apache 2 license for these sources relate to the
Creative Commons Attribute License 3.0 required from contributors?

And, as the specifications since 0.9+ doesn't carry any reference to any license
or copyright themselves, nor is there any indication otherwise within the svn
repository, the only 'global' statement I see is on the project home page where
it says Code license: Apache License 2.0

We (Apache project) are required to carry on existing copyright, license and
possible additional notices in our distributions, but right now I have nothing
to work with...

We could of course decide to simply *not* carry any notice for using and
bundling the OpenSocial 0.8 specification, as I see no claim, but I'd like to do
this proper, hence my request for clarification.

Regards, Ate

> -Mark Weitzel

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/8OPqcknZ1xwJ.
> To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark W.]

Ate,

I think there an intentional separation between the code (shindig) and the spec (opensocial). 

<<However, Shindig also (and still) uses *and* bundles the 0.8 specification javascript sources.>>

Where does shindig pick up the 0.8 stuff? 

I think the right thing to do is add the proper copyrights to the spec so that you can be compliant with Apache. 

Would that work for you?

[Ate Douma]

On 02/01/2012 09:21 PM, Mark W. wrote:
> Ate,
>
> I think there an intentional separation between the code (shindig) and the spec
> (opensocial).

Yes, and I think that is a good thing :)

For the 0.9+ spec therefore I don't think there is any need for legal
attributions in this respect.

>
> <<However, Shindig also (and still) uses *and* bundles the 0.8 specification
> javascript sources.>>
> Where does shindig pick up the 0.8 stuff?

The Shindig "opensocial-reference" feature [1] provides the javascript which
AFAIK at least in part originated from the 0.8 spec. Of course that has since
progressed a lot, so you probably won't find any exact match anymore, but
copyright-wise the origin is still relevant.

>
> I think the right thing to do is add the proper copyrights to the spec so that
> you can be compliant with Apache.

Claiming copyright and making the license terms explicit is I think important
anyway, so indeed the right thing to do. Not just to be compliant with Apache.

For the 0.9+ specifications however, which no longer comes in 'source' form to
embed, there is actually no need for *Apache* as there is nothing to redistribute.

>
> Would that work for you?

Right now, the only thing needed for us is to know the license and copyright
claims for the 0.8 spec.
I know that's 'old' stuff, but as said still in use by at least Shindig.
Please note that a copyright claim must include the year[s] applicable.

On the other hand, if the OpenSocial Foundation doesn't see any need for
claiming copyright and license anymore on this 0.8 spec, it could also
(explicitly) say so, e.g. like declaring it public domain or something.

Thanks, Ate

[1] http://s.apache.org/ZqL

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/FAZY8Nff6kcJ.

[Mark W.]

Do you have the boiler plate copyright text? If so, I could get this quickly looked at and if OK, include it. I'll also see about just declaring it public domain.

[Ate Douma]

On 02/02/2012 12:32 AM, Mark W. wrote:
> Do you have the boiler plate copyright text? If so, I could get this quickly
> looked at and if OK, include it.

LOL

OK, so if I want to make this really easy for both Shindig and downstream
(re)distributors like Apache Rave, I would suggest to add a license.txt file on
in svn on opensocial-resources under http://s.apache.org/Cu8 containing
something like:

OpenSocial Specification 0.8
Copyright (c) 2008 The Opensocial Foundation (http://www.opensocial.org)
Released under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)

A file called license.txt is preferred as that only requires us to append the
above statement to our LICENSE file.
If it were provided as a NOTICE file, we will be required to carry this in our
NOTICE file, and pushing that requirement downwards as well (as a requirement of
the Apache License 2.0),

> I'll also see about just declaring it public domain.

OK, although the above copyright statement actually would be easier to use than
a public domain statement (which we then need to attribute in our NOTICE file).

I only suggested the public domain option if there might be no easy way to
conclude if or which copyright statement should be used (or nobody would want to
bother).

Thanks, Ate

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/H3e9wgQtmcUJ.

[Ate Douma]

On 02/02/2012 01:08 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 12:32 AM, Mark W. wrote:
>> Do you have the boiler plate copyright text? If so, I could get this quickly
>> looked at and if OK, include it.
>
> LOL
>
> OK, so if I want to make this really easy for both Shindig and downstream
> (re)distributors like Apache Rave, I would suggest to add a license.txt file on
> in svn on opensocial-resources under http://s.apache.org/Cu8 containing
> something like:
>
> OpenSocial Specification 0.8
> Copyright (c) 2008 The Opensocial Foundation (http://www.opensocial.org)
> Released under the Apache License 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
>
> A file called license.txt is preferred as that only requires us to append the
> above statement to our LICENSE file.
> If it were provided as a NOTICE file, we will be required to carry this in our
> NOTICE file, and pushing that requirement downwards as well (as a requirement of
> the Apache License 2.0),
>
>
>> I'll also see about just declaring it public domain.
>
> OK, although the above copyright statement actually would be easier to use than
> a public domain statement (which we then need to attribute in our NOTICE file).
>
> I only suggested the public domain option if there might be no easy way to
> conclude if or which copyright statement should be used (or nobody would want to
> bother).

And come to think of it, my suggestion for maybe using public domain wasn't a
good one really. The javascript files for the 0.8 spec currently all carry the
AL license 2.0 header. If you would put it now under public domain you'd need to
remove all those headers then as well...

[Ate Douma]

On 02/02/2012 01:08 AM, Ate Douma wrote:

> On 02/02/2012 12:32 AM, Mark W. wrote:
>> Do you have the boiler plate copyright text? If so, I could get this quickly
>> looked at and if OK, include it.

Hi Mark,

Any status update on this?

I've got a Shindig patch ready for this and other notice/license fixes but I'm
holding off with submitting it until this one is clarified.

Thanks, Ate

[Laurent-Walter Goix]

I am following up on this as the current draft specification of OMA
Mobile Social Network references the latest version of OpenSocial
(2.0.1, but we do not exclude to align with a subsequent version if
more appropriate to OMA needs). For this reference to persist in the
OMA spec clarifications would be needed on potential ipr, licenses and/
or copyright on the spec itself.

I had the same interpretation than Ate on the fact that ipr apply only
to contributors as members of the foundation (individual companies),
but not on organizations referencing and/or implementing the spec
(especially the latest version) as no explicit mention exists in any
spec document. If so, an official statement on the opensocial website
and/or in the spec document itself would help to make this clear.

thanks
walter

> >>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/H3e9wgQ....

[Mark W.]

Walter & Ate,

I've opened Issue 1242 to track this and will try and add the necessary language ASAP. I'm committed to providing what you guys need to make this work.

-Mark W.

[Matthew Marum]

I've added LICENSE.txt to OpenSocial 0.8.

http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1242

Ate - I think that should clear up the more immediate issue blocking you.  Right?

The other important (though less pressing) issue is to clarify up the copyright owner (which is the OpenSocial Foundation) and license for the other spec versions. 

We could waive all rights (making it public domain) or if we want to make it licensed under creative commons (and thereby require attribution, etc.)

What does the Foundation think?  Just make the specifications public domain or use a CC Attribution license?

[Ate Douma]

On 02/10/2012 04:57 PM, Matthew Marum wrote:
> I've added LICENSE.txt to OpenSocial 0.8.
> http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1242
>
> Ate - I think that should clear up the more immediate issue blocking you. Right?

Yes, this is great. For Apache Shindig this should be good enough to resolve the
legal requirements with respect to the OpenSocial 0.8 usage.

Thanks for this!

>
> The other important (though less pressing) issue is to clarify up the copyright
> owner (which is the OpenSocial Foundation) and license for the other spec versions.
> We could waive all rights (making it public domain) or if we want to make it
> licensed under creative commons (and thereby require attribution, etc.)

Just to be clear: as the spec is today (since after 0.8), for *implementors*
this actually doesn't really matter much, as not to my knowledge, but of course
IANAL.
It would be different if future spec would add things like schema definitions
(xsd) or alike which implementors would want or be required to incorporate in
their product.

Copyright claims on the specs however does matter for others referring or
referencing the spec, like for other specification groups as Laurent-Walter
represents. Or anyone in general using the spec for documentation, publications,
books, etc.

HTH, Ate

>
> What does the Foundation think? Just make the specifications public domain or
> use a CC Attribution license?
>
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/YYIFdxVlwD8J.

[Laurent-Walter Goix]

Thank you for the update. As for referencing the new specs (2.0+) from
other documents normatively (e.g. from OMA), of course public domain
would avoid any legal discussion. I don't know however whether some
explicit mention of it still needs to be inserted in the spec itself.

walter

> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/YYIFdxV....

[Laurent-Walter Goix]

Are they any updates on this topic for the "recent" (and upcoming)
specs?

On Feb 14, 10:22 am, Laurent-Walter Goix

<laurentwalter.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the update. As for referencing the new specs (2.0+) from
> other documents normatively (e.g. from OMA), of course public domain
> would avoid any legal discussion. I don't know however whether some
> explicit mention of it still needs to be inserted in the spec itself.
>
> walter
>
> On Feb 10, 5:58 pm, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/10/2012 04:57 PM, Matthew Marum wrote:
>

> > > I've addedLICENSE.txt to OpenSocial 0.8.

> > >http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/detail?id=1242
>
> > > Ate - I think that should clear up the more immediate issue blocking you. Right?
>
> > Yes, this is great. For Apache Shindig this should be good enough to resolve the
> > legal requirements with respect to the OpenSocial 0.8 usage.
>
> > Thanks for this!
>
> > > The other important (though less pressing) issue is to clarify up the copyright

> > > owner (which is the OpenSocial Foundation) andlicensefor the other spec versions.

[Kevin Marks]

I'd recommend looking at the Creative Commons CC0 license, as it handles the issues of declaring Public Domain in jurisdictions other than the US.
Also, have you looked into the Open Web Foundation agreements for future iterations? It grew out of the OpenSocial work, and may be easier for some companies that have already seen it in other contexts.