[Fiware-technical-committee] Final report on FIWARE Note for GPLv3/AGPLv3 components plus poll on decision to include note in headers

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi everyone,

   This is a friendly reminder for you to cast your preferences in this 
important matter.

   Cheers,

   Juanjo


On 16/07/2020 13:48, Juanjo Hierro wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>   As you know, we hired the services of the legal firm Across Legal/Id 
> law partners to assess validity of the FIWARE Note 
> <https://fiware-requirements.readthedocs.io/en/latest/GE_Requirements/#licensing-and-ipr-management-requirements> 
> which has to be added to the license for any FIWARE component that is 
> distributed under a strong copyleft license (typically in our case, 
> GPLv3 or AGPLv3).
>
>   Please find enclosed their final report both detailed (Memo_Across 
> Legal_FIWARE_2020_final.pdf) and as executive summary (FIWARE Opinion 
> Summary_final.pdf).
>
>   As you will find the note is considered valid and it provides enough 
> certainty to users of FIWARE so they don't have to release the 
> software of their applications as open source if they merely use those 
> FIWARE components.
>
>   There is a question which has to do with whether the FIWARE Note 
> should be included in the headers of files of the source code or 
> whether it is fine just to keep it as a note under the license section 
> on the GitHub repo of the component (which is the current MUST 
> requirement).   In this respect, you will find in the legal report that:
>
>   * If the Note is considered merely an interpretative statement, then
>     downstream licensees of the code who make and distribute a
>     derivative work of the FIWARE component in question may remove
>     this statement for its own code.
>   * If it is considered as a term of the license, then downstream
>     licensees of the code who make and distribute a derivative work of
>     the FIWARE component in question cannot remove this statement for
>     its own code.
>
>   Therefore, if we want to avoid that downstream licensees modifying 
> the code drop the note, it is advisable to add the Note in the headers 
> of source code.
>
>   However, we have to agree whether such requirement would be a MAY, 
> SHOULD or MUST requirement and, in the later case, what could be the 
> transition period we would give to GE owners.
>
>   I have created a google form 
> <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeWVG3-QthupuVFZ0zMv0t9Y_D1CuwofbCphF5ZP70q2wMrhg/viewform?usp=sf_link> 
> for casting votes from the FIWARE TSC members who have to actually 
> make a decision.  Options will be:
>
>  1. This requirement will be only a MAY requirement
>  2. This requirement will become a MUST requirement after a period of
>     6 months, in the interim will be listed as MAY requirement.
>  3. This requirement will become a SHOULD requirement after a period
>     of 6 months, in the interim will be listed as MAY requirement.
>
>   FIWARE GE owner representatives are welcome to comment on the matter 
> in response to this mail despite final decision will be based on TSC 
> members decision.
>
>   Please cast your vote before the TSC this coming Monday, because we 
> want to come with a final decision.
>
>   Cheers,
>
> Document
> Juanjo Hierro
> Chief Technology Officer
> juanjose.hierro at fiware.org <mailto:juanjose.hierro at fiware.org>
> www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro>
> Twitter: @fiware <https://twitter.com/fiware> @JuanjoHierro 
> <https://twitter.com/JuanjoHierro>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-technical-committee/attachments/20200717/d0c2c5ae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: foundation-logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8201 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-technical-committee/attachments/20200717/d0c2c5ae/attachment.png>