Subject: For Approval: Educational Community License 1.0
From: Christopher D. Coppola <chris.coppola@rsmart.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:17:24 -0700
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:17:24 -0700
I'm writing to request approval of the Educational Community License  
2.0.  ECL 2.0 is intended to replace ECL 1.0 (http:// 
www.opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php) and it is closely modeled after  
the Apache 2.0 license in an effort to reduce the burdens of license  
proliferation.  Our eventual goal is to adopt the Apache 2.0 license  
itself, however we cannot adopt the Apache 2.0 license in its current  
version because the colleges and universities that are the primary  
contributors to our projects face restrictions on their ability to  
grant patent licenses that are incompatible with the current version  
of the Apache license.  ECL 2.0 is intended to make as few changes to  
the Apache license as possible, while remedying this incompatibility.

A little background...

I'm making this request on behalf of a number of large open source  
communities that are developing open source applications for  
education, primarily colleges and universities. ECL 1.0 is presently  
used by the Sakai Foundation (www.sakaiproject.org), the Kuali  
Foundation (www.kuali.org), and a number of smaller open source  
projects within the higher education community.

The Sakai and Kuali Foundations are not-for-profit organizations  
modeled after the Apache Foundation and dedicated to coordinating  
community activities and safeguarding the community's intellectual  
property. The Sakai Foundation is developing enterprise collaboration  
and learning software and has more than 100 institutional members  
from around the world. The Kuali Foundation is developing a number of  
ERP-type applications for colleges and universities in areas such as  
Financials, Endowment Management, Research Administration, and  
Student Services.

Over the past few years, we have developed an IP management practice  
modeled after Apache's. We use inbound licenses modeled after the  
Apache's Contributor License Agreements. We also have a rigorous  
evaluation process for third party software that is proposed for  
inclusion in our distribution as part of our QA process, and we  
supplement this with periodic third party reviews using outside  
consultants / software tools and counsel.

As part of this process, we have attempted to adopt the form of  
contribution agreement used by Apache for use in connection with  
contributions by educational institutions.  We wanted to use the  
Apache form of contribution agreement so that we could eventually  
move away from ECL 1.0 and move towards adoption of the Apache form  
of open source license.

In the process, however, we discovered an incompatibility between the  
patent clause in the Apache license and the rules that these  
educational institutions must follow.  The incompatability has two  
features:  First, while these educational institutions want to  
encourage contributions to these projects because they have the  
potential to be of enormous benefit to the entire higher education  
community, many research institutions simply do not have the ability  
to grant a patent license that will cover not only inventions by the  
individual faculty who are contributing to these projects, but also  
faculty and staff that have no involvement with the projects.  In  
this regard, they are unlike a corporation that might wish to  
contribute to an open source project, where the corporation will  
typically control the patents that may be embodied in their  
contribution under relevant employment agreements.  Second, in many  
cases these universities are subject to pre-existing research and  
grant funding agreements that limit their ability to grant patent  
licenses.

The need to evolve ECL 1.0

In November we held an international licensing summit among our  
community with the goal of developing a common licensing framework  
that would serve to minimize the friction of licensing when  
contributing to and adopting open source software among colleges and  
universities. See http://summit2006.osnext.org.  One key outcome of  
the summit was the decision to try to move towards adoption of the  
Apache 2.0 form of outbound license.  This was favored for a number  
of reasons:

1. It is a popular license and therefore would likely be accepted  
more readily
2. Adopting the Apache license would help with license proliferation
3. It includes a patent license
4. It would create a high degree of inbound/outbound licensing  
symmetry with our contribution agreements.

Unfortunately, adopting the Apache license outright isn't an  
immediate option for our community, because of the patent-related  
issues described above.  Adopting the Apache 2.0 form of outbound  
license would break the symmetry between the inbound contribution  
agreements that our participating institutions are able to provide,  
we obviously cannot make claims in the outbound license that are not  
supported by the inbound contribution agreements. In response, we  
decided that ECL 2.0 should be a clone of Apache with minimal changes  
to achieve inbound/outbound license symmetry.  This is what we are  
submitting for approval today.

I'll wrap up my rationale for our approach, and for approval with the  
following considerations:

1. As far as we know, ECL 1.0 is in use only within our community. We  
have a very cohesive community and will endeavor to eliminate the use  
of ECL 1.0 if ECL 2.0 is approved. This could be achieved in as  
little as 6 months.

2. Our ultimate goal is to move to one of the popular licenses  
altogether and eliminate ECL. This will take some time, but a  
representative of Apache participated in our licensing summmit in  
November, and we hope to continue our dialogue with the Apache  
Foundation about the issues colleges and universities face in trying  
to use the current Apache licenses. We're hopeful that over some  
period of time, our community will bend a little, and the Apache  
license will evolve so that our community and the license converge.  
At this point we would do our best to retire ECL 2 altogether.

3. We cannot move to Apache 2.0 immediately due to the importance of  
contributor license agreements, the limitations on the claims  
universities are able to make in those CLAs, and the asymmetry  
created if our outbound license has claims more broad than our  
inbound licenses.

Text version of ECL 2:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola% 
40rsmart.com/ecl2.txt

Formatted version:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola% 
40rsmart.com/ECL2.0.doc

or
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola% 
40rsmart.com/ecl2.html

Kuali CCLA:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola% 
40rsmart.com/KualiCCLA 1.1.doc

Thank you for considering this request,

--
Chris Coppola
chris.coppola@rsmart.com

President, The rSmart Group
Director, The Sakai Foundation
Director, The Kuali Foundation






I'm writing to request approval of the Educational Community License 2.0. ECL 2.0 is intended to replace ECL 1.0 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ecl1.php) and it is closely modeled after the Apache 2.0 license in an effort to reduce the burdens of license proliferation. Our eventual goal is to adopt the Apache 2.0 license itself, however we cannot adopt the Apache 2.0 license in its current version because the colleges and universities that are the primary contributors to our projects face restrictions on their ability to grant patent licenses that are incompatible with the current version of the Apache license. ECL 2.0 is intended to make as few changes to the Apache license as possible, while remedying this incompatibility.

A little background...

I'm making this request on behalf of a number of large open source communities that are developing open source applications for education, primarily colleges and universities. ECL 1.0 is presently used by the Sakai Foundation (www.sakaiproject.org), the Kuali Foundation (www.kuali.org), and a number of smaller open source projects within the higher education community.

The Sakai and Kuali Foundations are not-for-profit organizations modeled after the Apache Foundation and dedicated to coordinating community activities and safeguarding the community's intellectual property. The Sakai Foundation is developing enterprise collaboration and learning software and has more than 100 institutional members from around the world. The Kuali Foundation is developing a number of ERP-type applications for colleges and universities in areas such as Financials, Endowment Management, Research Administration, and Student Services.

Over the past few years, we have developed an IP management practice modeled after Apache's. We use inbound licenses modeled after the Apache's Contributor License Agreements. We also have a rigorous evaluation process for third party software that is proposed for inclusion in our distribution as part of our QA process, and we supplement this with periodic third party reviews using outside consultants / software tools and counsel.

As part of this process, we have attempted to adopt the form of contribution agreement used by Apache for use in connection with contributions by educational institutions. We wanted to use the Apache form of contribution agreement so that we could eventually move away from ECL 1.0 and move towards adoption of the Apache form of open source license.

In the process, however, we discovered an incompatibility between the patent clause in the Apache license and the rules that these educational institutions must follow. The incompatability has two features: First, while these educational institutions want to encourage contributions to these projects because they have the potential to be of enormous benefit to the entire higher education community, many research institutions simply do not have the ability to grant a patent license that will cover not only inventions by the individual faculty who are contributing to these projects, but also faculty and staff that have no involvement with the projects. In this regard, they are unlike a corporation that might wish to contribute to an open source project, where the corporation will typically control the patents that may be embodied in their contribution under relevant employment agreements. Second, in many cases these universities are subject to pre-existing research and grant funding agreements that limit their ability to grant patent licenses.

The need to evolve ECL 1.0

In November we held an international licensing summit among our community with the goal of developing a common licensing framework that would serve to minimize the friction of licensing when contributing to and adopting open source software among colleges and universities. See http://summit2006.osnext.org. One key outcome of the summit was the decision to try to move towards adoption of the Apache 2.0 form of outbound license. This was favored for a number of reasons:

1. It is a popular license and therefore would likely be accepted more readily
2. Adopting the Apache license would help with license proliferation
3. It includes a patent license
4. It would create a high degree of inbound/outbound licensing symmetry with our contribution agreements.

Unfortunately, adopting the Apache license outright isn't an immediate option for our community, because of the patent-related issues described above. Adopting the Apache 2.0 form of outbound license would break the symmetry between the inbound contribution agreements that our participating institutions are able to provide, we obviously cannot make claims in the outbound license that are not supported by the inbound contribution agreements. In response, we decided that ECL 2.0 should be a clone of Apache with minimal changes to achieve inbound/outbound license symmetry. This is what we are submitting for approval today.

I'll wrap up my rationale for our approach, and for approval with the following considerations:

1. As far as we know, ECL 1.0 is in use only within our community. We have a very cohesive community and will endeavor to eliminate the use of ECL 1.0 if ECL 2.0 is approved. This could be achieved in as little as 6 months.

2. Our ultimate goal is to move to one of the popular licenses altogether and eliminate ECL. This will take some time, but a representative of Apache participated in our licensing summmit in November, and we hope to continue our dialogue with the Apache Foundation about the issues colleges and universities face in trying to use the current Apache licenses. We're hopeful that over some period of time, our community will bend a little, and the Apache license will evolve so that our community and the license converge. At this point we would do our best to retire ECL 2 altogether.

3. We cannot move to Apache 2.0 immediately due to the importance of contributor license agreements, the limitations on the claims universities are able to make in those CLAs, and the asymmetry created if our outbound license has claims more broad than our inbound licenses.

Text version of ECL 2:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola%40rsmart.com/ecl2.txt

Formatted version:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola%40rsmart.com/ECL2.0.doc

or
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola%40rsmart.com/ecl2.html

Kuali CCLA:
https://www.collabtools.org/access/content/user/chris.coppola%40rsmart.com/KualiCCLA 1.1.doc

Thank you for considering this request,

--
Chris Coppola
chris.coppola@rsmart.com

President, The rSmart Group
Director, The Sakai Foundation
Director, The Kuali Foundation



Educational Community License, Version 2.0
Educational Community License 
Version 2.0, April 2007 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION 
1. Definitions.

"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution
as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. 

"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner
that is granting the License. 

"Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that
control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes
of this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership
of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership
of such entity. 

"You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted
by this License. 

"Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but
not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.


"Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation
of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
and conversions to other media types. 

"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available
under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached
to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below). 

"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based
on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,
or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the
purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable
from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative
Works thereof. 

"Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of
the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof,
that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright
owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright
owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any form of electronic,
verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including
but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the
purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously
marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."


"Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom
a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the
Work. 

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative
Works in Source or Object form. 

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each
Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use,
offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies
only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed
by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work
to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against
any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the
Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory
patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for
that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Any patent license
granted hereby with respect to contributions by an individual employed by an institution
or organization is limited to patent claims where the individual that is the author
of the Work is also the inventor of the patent claims licensed, and where the organization
or institution has the right to grant such license under applicable grant and research
funding agreements. No other express or implied licenses are granted.

4. Redistribution. 

You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any
medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
meet the following conditions: 

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License;
and 

You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed
the files; and 

You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and


If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative
Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text
file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation,
if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative
Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the
NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may
add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution
notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional
or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of
Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated
in this License. 

5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution
intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under
the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any
separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.


6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks,
service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and
customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the
NOTICE file. 

7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS
IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied,
including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for
determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks
associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License. 

8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including
negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate
and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable
to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential
damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability
to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage,
computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses),
even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 

9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative
Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support,
warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf
and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if
You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting
any such warranty or additional liability. 

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

APPENDIX: How to apply the Educational Community License to your work 

To apply the Educational Community License to your work, attach the following boilerplate
notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying
information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a file or class name and
description of purpose be included on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice
for easier identification within third-party archives. 

	Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the
	Educational Community License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may
	not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may
	obtain a copy of the License at
	
	http://www.osedu.org/licenses/ECL-2.0

	Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
	software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
	BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express
	or implied. See the License for the specific language governing
	permissions and limitations under the License.