[FI-NEXT] fi-next ca version 14.02.207

celine.fontaine at orange.com celine.fontaine at orange.com
Wed Feb 22 18:38:58 CET 2017

Previous message: [FI-NEXT] fi-next ca version 14.02.207
Next message: [FI-NEXT] fi-next ca version 14.02.207
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear Stefano,

I hope that you are well.

We have considered the remaining issue related to the open source provision article 4.2.7.2.

We propose a modification of your wording. Please see the document attached.

Even though it is not perfect (assuming that you are well aware that we do not support the idea of a public statement), we propose this modification as we think that “linking” a software with a Fiware component under a controlled license could not be an aggregate (for instance in case of the GNU GPL license or the GNU Affero License), and therefore should be confusing for a potential user. We want that the public statement that you want to have should be simpler as possible and be understood by a potential user.

We want to be cautious about the fact that this interaction should not be considered as a derivative work.

Best regards,

[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>

Céline Fontaine
Legal Counsel IP
ORANGE/SG/DJ/SIP/IP

phone: +33 1 57 39 62 39 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%201%2045%2029%2062%2039>
celine.fontaine at orange.com<mailto:celine.fontaine at orange.com>

De : Stefano De Panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org]
Envoyé : jeudi 16 février 2017 19:47
À : SARRAZIN Robert SG/DJ
Cc : fi-next at lists.fiware.org; Maria Luisa Porro; FONTAINE Céline SG/DJ; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS
Objet : Re: fi-next ca version 14.02.207

dear robert,

indeed, it was my mistake not to add the new text for article 4.2.7.2. in the first version of the ca, but as soon as somebody reminded that to me i immediately put it in.
apologise for the inconvenience.

please as soons as your open source expert colleague will be back from the holidays address he/her really asap, becouse the signature progress cannot proceed as well as the distribution of funding. indeed, the requireent from my management is not to distribute any single euro before the ca is at least agreed by all (in principle they would like to have it duly signed by all...).

can you tell us when you think you'll come back to us?

i'm sure you very well understand the urgency, but also the priority i'm giving you.

ciao,
stefano

On 16 February 2017 at 11:58, <robert.sarrazin at orange.com<mailto:robert.sarrazin at orange.com>> wrote:
Dear Stefano,

Thank you for your explanations.

I was not aware that a dedicated team worked on this issue, to suggest the new wording you propose for Article 4.2.7.2. I have only noticed that such a wording has been proposed almost at the end of CA negotiations for the Fi next Project .

As you know, we do not support the idea of a public statement which can be not compliant with the applicable license terms of an open source license chosen by a contributor.
You are right when you say that some of the “controlled licences “ are a bit ambiguous but we cannot re-write the text of such licenses. In any case the terms of such licenses remain applicable, when chosen by a given contributor.

Having said that I intend to further examine this matter with our open source expert ( which is currently out of office until next week ) to consider if possible alternative solutions are workable .

Best regards

De : Stefano De Panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org<mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org>]
Envoyé : jeudi 16 février 2017 06:26

À : SARRAZIN Robert SG/DJ
Cc : fi-next at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fi-next at lists.fiware.org>; Maria Luisa Porro; FONTAINE Céline SG/DJ; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS
Objet : Re: fi-next ca version 14.02.207

dear robert,

it is true that the original statement you'd like to push back was that in the ca of fi-core, but, and i guess you miss this information, within the fi-core project a dedicated team open to all the beneficiaries worked for several months and came out with the text that is now in this fi-next ca.

what i wonted to remark here is that the current text is not my text out of the blue, but is a text which come out as a collaborative work of all (well may be only the interested) beneficiaries of fi-core. most of the beneficiaries who participated in such collaborative effort were supported by their attorneis.

now i do not remember if orange participated in that dedicated team and if so the person there was supported by a legal expert, still the text in the current ca comes from many months of effort as a collaborative work.

the goal of that team was to guarantee the maximum adoption of the fiware technologies. as you well know all of those technologies offer rest apis to be used to use such software in new applications. this is perfectly in line with all the major oss communities which offer software through the cloud as fiware does.

as you well know, some of the controlled licences are a bit ambiguous on what they consider derivative work. we as fiware cannot accept that the simple usage of unmodifed software through the apis it offers is considered a derivative work. if this is the case all the key concept of fiware, including for instance fiware lab, become meaningless. this is exactly what we do not want!

so the result of the decicated team was for case 3 (i.e. software produced by a single contributor who want to use a controlled licence for its software) to put the statement, as mongdb does, to avoid any doubt of the interpretation of what is derivative work and what is not. as simple as that.

if you have alternative solutions that match this requirement i'm happy to study them, but the current formulation you suggest, i.e. the old formulation in fi-core, does not protect fiware and its wider adoption, even more it generates exactly the counter effect which is the death of fiware.

i'm sure you well understand these concerns and i'm far then happy to find a good solution together with you, but which will not bring back us.

ciao,
stefano

On 15 February 2017 at 17:08, <robert.sarrazin at orange.com<mailto:robert.sarrazin at orange.com>> wrote:
Dear Stefano,

Thank you for your reply

I understand the Fiware objectives and that you want somehow to manage case 3 “. those who are the only owner and want to use controlled licenses” but, on the other hand, I am afraid it should be difficult for a given contributor to make a correct – public – statement saying: Software that merely uses or aggregates (i.e. links to) an otherwise unmodified version of the <name of FIWARE GEri> product software is not considered a derivative work”. If such contributor use certain controlled licenses, for the distribution of the concerned software, if such statement is not compliant with the applicable license terms of the controlled license chosen by such contributor .

Such kind of public statement , in my opinion, does not give legal certainty for a potential user.
In other words I think that such public statement does not solve the problem .

I do not really see the reason why we do not use the initial wording that you have proposed for Article 4.2.7.2 ( with slight modifications- ) which has been already discussed for Fi Core project and which seems in line with your objective to limit as much as possible case 3 .
We can further examine the matter with our open source expert( which is currently out of office until next week ) but now I cannot support the idea of this public statement .

Best regards

De : Stefano De Panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org<mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org>]
Envoyé : mercredi 15 février 2017 12:41
À : SARRAZIN Robert SG/DJ
Cc : fi-next at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fi-next at lists.fiware.org>; Maria Luisa Porro; FONTAINE Céline SG/DJ; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS
Objet : Re: fi-next ca version 14.02.207

dear robert,

we have to distingush between three different cases:
1. the case of those who are fully compliant with fiware approach
2. those who use third party software which use controlled licenses
3. those who are the only owner and want to use controlled licenses

the goal of fiware is to limit as much as possible cases 2 and 3 or at least limits their effects.

so considering that as such we cannot do anything with case 2 more then that having the fiware technical steering committee trying to persuade the contributor to avoid to use software released under controlled licenses, we would want somehow to manage case 3 and this why we ask them to use the additional text proposed. this way also the case 3 becomes fully fiware compliant.

please note that mongodb applies a very much similar approach to us (https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl), i.e. we, as them, want that fiware users can use fiware (i.e. connect their applications to fiware) without considering them derivative work.

so, honestly, we would prefer to keep the current wording.

ciao,
stefano

On 15 February 2017 at 11:55, <robert.sarrazin at orange.com<mailto:robert.sarrazin at orange.com>> wrote:
Dear Stefano,

Thank you for this new version.
I appreciate your efforts to propose a compromise text related to Article 4.2.7.2

However I do not agree to state an obligation to make such a public statement , ie an attempt to interpret ( for the public ) the applicable license terms of an open source licence, for the reasons already explained .

Furthermore it seems inconsistent that such a public statement shall be made by a contributor who cannot ensure that the relevant terms are met. If such terms are not met, the concerned contributor shall thus not be in a position to make the public statement that you propose to make. In any case we think that such a public statement does not give legal certainty to a potential user of a reference implementation.

So I propose to go back to the initial wording proposed ( coming from a previous project ) with slight modifications ( see attached wording )

Thank you for your understanding .

Best regards

De : Stefano De Panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org<mailto:stefano.depanfilis at fiware.org>]
Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2017 18:47
À : fi-next at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fi-next at lists.fiware.org>; Maria Luisa Porro; SARRAZIN Robert SG/DJ
Objet : fi-next ca version 14.02.207

dear all,

please find attached the last version of the ca which really i'd like to consider really final.
actually i'll do so if i will not receive requests for modifications within this friday noon.

attached to this email you get two versions one clean, on which in case you provide your missing data or requests for modifications if any, and a version with all the changes with respect to the previous version for you to check the modifications i made.

if there are no requests for modifications, this monday we can start the signature process and on receiving the signatures also i can instruct engineering to forward the due pre-financing.

please note i still miss data from:
- dfki (page 4 and page 50)
- image & reseaux (page 48)
- upm (page 51)

ciao,
stefano

--
Stefano De Panfilis
Chief Operating Officer
FIWARE Foundation e.V.

Franklinstrasse 13A
10587 Berlin

mob: +393357542567<tel:+39%20335%20754%202567>
skype: depa01
twitter: depa01

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.