ASF spec licensing issues

[Rik Hemsley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

#if Shane Wright

Here's my reading. Note that I'm just going by my personal understanding.
I'm pretty confident I will make some incorrect statements, so please
be kind :)

> 2 (c) ...Further, you shall use commercially reasonable efforts to
> ensure that the use or distribution of your Solution, including the
> Implementation as incorporated into your Solution, shall not in any
> way disclose or reveal the information contained in the
> Specification.

Doing anything other than releasing it under an Open Source license
would be commercially unreasonable in your case, so I wonder if this
clause is enforcable using its maybe-intended meaning.

> 2 (g) ...your license rights to the Specification are conditioned
> upon your (a) not distributing the Implementation in conjunction with
> Identified Software (as defined below);

Translation: You're not allowed to distribute it with anything other than
kdelibs (based on my later reading that LGPL is ok), so it can't be in
any of the other KDE modules, though can be distributed separately from
KDE.

> (b) not using Identified
> Software (e.g. tools) to develop the Implementation;

Translation: You're not allowed to edit the code using a GPL text editor
(EMACS), nor are you allowed to compile it using gcc while developing it. I
don't see anything about compiling it with gcc _after_ it's been developed.

I also don't see how they could prove you edited the code with EMACS or
compiled it using gcc unless you add EMACS modelines, use gcc extensions,
explicitly state that you have used either of them in the development
process, etc.

> and (c) not
> distributing the Implementation under license terms which would make
> the Implementation Identified Software....    ...Identified Software
> includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a
> condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software
> that other software distributed with such software (x) be disclosed
> or distributed in source code form; (y) be licensed for the purpose
> of making derivative works; or (z) be redistributable at no charge

Translation: You're not allowed to make it GPL, but you can make it LGPL.

> Part 2 (d) is also annoying; it says that my 'Solution' (the KFile
> plugin), must implement the Spec in it's entirety; hardly appropriate
> for its purposes.

Difficult one.

> So, the way I read that, I can't develop the plugin because:
>
> (a) I don't want the implement all of the spec,
> (b) I'm using GPL'd tools to implement it,

Oh dear, you said that in public.

> (c) It will be GPL'd when done,

Looks like that's impossible, but my reading is that LGPL is possible,
plus probably some of the other Open Source licenses (BSD, MIT...)

> The point is, am I reading this wrong?  Is it legal to develop the
> plugin? Alternatively, would it have been legal if I hadn't read the
> spec and just based it purely on xine's ASF/WMV code?

I think it would have been legal, had you not seen the spec, but
of course IANAL.

Rik

- -- 
http://rikkus.info
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9Oal56rehpl6X9l0RAgeNAJ98KqMa2itJHYghDwb0VDwvq0GxgwCghxQb
Zrzi98J4yvg3kRUxFav7Cjw=
=LZBD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----