Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
Opensourcelicensinganddevelopmentapproacheshavebeenchallengingand transformingsoftwaredevelopmentfordecades.Althoughopensourcelicensingis oftendescribedasradical,itisbuiltonsolid,traditionallegalfoundations,including therightsgrantedbycopyrightunderthelawoftheUnitedStates(andelsewhere), and the ways in which basic contract principles can alter and supersede those rights.
Basic Principles of Copyright Law
UnderthelawsoftheUnitedStates(andofEuropeancountries,throughtheBerne Convention,andofmembersoftheWorldTradeOrganizationthroughtheWTO AgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights),copyrightis automaticallyattachedtoeverynovelexpressionofanidea,whetherthroughtext, sounds,orimagery.Forexample,thewordsinthisparagraphareprotectedbycopyrightassoonastheyarewritten.Thisalsoappliestodiaryentries,letters,songlyrics,anddrawings,eveniftheyareonlydone“offthecuff,”inthemostcasualof circumstances.
Forexample,adrawingofadogmadeonacafénapkiniscopyrightedsimultaneouslywithitscreationandisthesoleproperty—barringanycontractualabrogationofthecopyright—ofitscreator.Thisdrawingcannotbecopied,displayed,or otherwisecommerciallyexploitedbyanypersonotherthanthecreatorforthelifeof thecopyright.Amongotherthings,nopersonotherthanthecreatorhastheright undercopyrightlawtocreate“derivativeworks”—worksthatdependuponor developfromtheoriginal,copyrightedwork.Thislimitationisofparticularsignificancetoopensourcelicensing,aswillbeexplainedlater.IntheUnitedStates,the periodprotectedbycopyrightisverylongindeed:thelifeofthecreatorplus70 years,orinthecaseofworksmade“forhire”orbycreatorswhoarenotidentified, 95yearsfromthedateofpublicationor120yearsfromthedateofcreation,whichever is shorter.
Thisdoesnotmean,ofcourse,thatthecreatorofthisdrawinghasamonopolyon thedepictionofdogs.Copyrightlawdoesnotprotectanyparticularidea.Rather, copyrightprotectsonlythe expression ofthatidea.Thecreatorofthedogdrawing hasarighttothecommercialexploitationofonlythatparticularexpressionof“dog.” Thisrightisnolimitationontherightofotherstocreate,andtocommercially exploit,theirownexpressionsof“dog,”whetherthroughdrawingorothermedia. Thislimitationtoexpressionsexcludesprotectionfromcopyrightofcreationsthat arenotexpressedinatangible,reproduciblemedium.Forexample,adramatic monologuereadonastreetcornerisnotprotectedbycopyright.However,ifareadingofthatmonologueisrecorded,whetheronaudioorvideotapeorpaper,itissubject to copyright protection.

Thislimitationtotheexpressionsofanideaistheprincipaldistinctionbetweentheapplicationsofpatentandcopyright.Unlikecopyright,avalidpatentdoesnotprotecttheexpressionofanideabutthe underlyingsubstanceofit.Forexample,apatentapplicabletoa microchipprotectsnottheexpressionofthechipitself,ortheelectricaldiagramdescribingit,buttheideathatgivencircuitscanbeorganizedandmadetooperateinaparticularway.Becauseoftheir potentiallyvastscope,patentsareconstruedmorestrictly,requirea registration process, and last for shorter periods than copyrights.
Acopyrightdoesnotneedtoberegisteredtobelegallyeffective.Asalreadynoted,a copyrightcomesintoforcewhentheprotectedworkiscreated.Whileregistrationof theworkwiththeUnitedStatesCopyrightOfficehassomeeffectontherightsofthe copyrightholder,itisnotrequired.Moreover,whileworkspublishedpreviousto March1,1989needtobearexplicitnoticeofcopyrightprotectionorrisklosingthat protection,workspublishedafterthatdatedonot.Nonetheless,useofacopyright notice alerts potential infringers that the work falls under the protection of copyright.
Thevestingofcopyrightprotectioninthecreatorofaworkissubjecttotwoimportantlimitations:thedoctrinesof“workforhire”and“fairuse.”Worksthataremade “forhire”aremadebyanemployeeinthescopeofhisorheremploymentby another,includingthosethatarespeciallycommissionedforuseinanotherworkor asasupplementtoanotherwork,suchasatranslation.Worksthatarecreated“for hire”arestillsubjecttocopyrightprotection,underthesametermsasdescribed above,butthecopyrightbelongstotheemployerofthecreator,orthepersonwho commissioned the work, not the creator.
Thedoctrineof“fairuse”definescertainusesofcopyrightedmaterialasnon-infringing.“Fairuse”allowspersonsotherthanthecreatortomakecertainlimitedusesof thecopyrightedmaterialforpurposesofcommentinguponorcriticizingthework, reporting,orteachingrelatedtothecopyrightedmaterial.“Fairuse”isaflexible standard,andwhetheraparticularuseisconsidered“fair”dependsinsubstantial partontheextenttowhichthatuseimpedesthecopyrightholder’sexclusiverights
2 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
tocommerciallyexploitthework.Inaddition,oneadditionalcategoryofworkis heldtobenon-infringing.A“transformativederivativework”isonethat,although basedonacopyrightedwork,sofundamentallyaltersitthatanewworkresults. Sucha“transformativederivativework”isconsideredanewworkforcopyrightpurposes,andtheholderofthecopyrightofthework—fromwhichsucha“transformative derivative work” is derived—has no rights over it.
Finally,theprotectionsofcopyrightaresubjecttoonemoreimportantlimitation: time.Copyrightedworksareprotectedforasetperiodoftime,measuredeitherfrom thedeathoftheircreatororfromthedateoftheircreation.Aftertheexpirationof thatperiodoftime,thecopyrightprotectionontheworklapsesastheworkgoes into the “public domain.”
Workscurrentlyinthepublicdomainincludethousandsofsongsandmusical works,novels,poems,stories,andhistorieswrittenbeforethetwentiethcentury. Anyoneisfreetocommerciallyexploitsuchworksbysellingcopiesofthoseworks, creatingderivativeworksbaseduponthem,andbydistribuingordisplayingthe work publicly.
Contract and Copyright
IntheUnitedStates,alloftherightsbelongingtothecreatorofaworkbecometheirs atthetimeofthecompletionofthatworkinafixedmedium.Noregistrationis required,nordoesanysignedwritingneedtobeexecutedinordertopreservethose rights. Rather, these rights arise entirely from the operation of the statutory law.
Creatorsrarelytakeadvantageoftheserightsbythemselves,however.Theproductionanddistributionofworksonalargescalehashistoricallybeencapital-intensive, socreatorsofworkshavegenerallyreliedonotherstoproducethephysicalcopiesof theirworksanddistributethem.Theideaofcopyrightdevelopedinparallelwiththe developmentoftheprintingpressinthefifteenthcentury,anditoriginallyprotected therightsofprinterstoexclusivelyexploitworksthattheyhadcommissioned.Legal enforcement,and,inparticular,internationallegalenforcement,beingwhatitwasin thefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,copyrightswerefrequentlydisregarded.Of course,giventhesystematicviolationofcopyrightsinmanypartsoftheworldtoday, it can be argued that the situation has not changed that much.
Therelationshipbetweenthecreatorofaworkanditspublisherisoftenanuneasy one.Thecreator,naturally,wishestoretainbothcontrolovertheuseofthework andtheincomestreamderivedfromcommercialexploitationofthework.Thepublisher,whetherabookcompany,arecordlabel,orafilmstudio—totakethreecommonexamples—similarlywishestoretainexactlythosesamethings:controlover andincomefromthework.Becausepublishing(inwhateverformat)isacapitalintensivebusiness,thedynamictendstostronglyfavorthepublisheroverthecreatorofthework,exceptintheexceptionalcaseofcreatorswhohavebothaproven
Contract and Copyright | 3
is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
trackrecordofgeneratingincomefromtheirworkand,perhapsmoreimportantly, theabilitytonegotiatewithoutrestriction.Thecaseofmusiciansandtheirbattles with record labels is particularly well-known.
Themosttypicaltrademadebetweencreatorsandpublishersisthelicensingofthe workinexchangeforpayments,knownasroyalties.Inthecaseofbooks,authorsare generallyentitledtoroyaltiesoneverycopysoldbythepublisher.Musicroyaltiesare morecomplicatedbecausetherearemorevenuesinwhichmusiccanbesoldorpubliclyperformed,buttheprincipleisthesame.Royaltiesaregenerallyowedtothe songwriterforeverycopyofanalbumsold(mechanicalroyalties),forplayonjukeboxesorontheradio(performanceroyalties),andforuseontelevisionorinfilms (synchronization royalties).
Softwarepublishing,thesubjectwithwhichthisbookisprimarilyconcerned,generallydoesnotinvolvethepaymentofroyaltiestoindividuals.Becausecommercial softwareismade,asageneralmatter,bylargeteamsofpeopleandrequiresthesubstantialexpenditureofcapital,theresultingworkis“workforhire.”Asalreadydiscussed,thecopyrightofsuchworksbelongstotheemployer,which,inthecaseof software, is usually also the publisher and the distributor of the software itself.
Ingeneral,undertheAmericancopyrightsystemaneffectivemonopolyisvestedin thecreatorofeachwork,subjecttorelativelyfewlimitations.However,foranumberofreasons,mostofthemhavingtodowiththesubstantialcostsofdeveloping anddistributingworkinamass-marketmedium,rightsheldundercopyrightare rarelyenforcedbythework’screatorandverylittle,ifany,ofthebenefitofthecopyrightgoestothatperson.Rather,becauseofthenegotiationofcontractsbypublisherswiththecreatororthroughthedoctrineofworkforhire,thebenefitsofcopyright flow to the corporations that distribute the work, not the people who create it.
Open Source Software Licensing
Inpartasareactiontothisdistributor-drivenmodelofcopyrightlicensing,programmersdevelopedwhatisnowknownpopularlyas“OpenSource”licensing.The developmentofthismannerofsoftwaredevelopmentandlicensinghasbeen describedwellelsewhereandwillnotberepeatedhere.Formoredetailsonthehistory,read FreeAsInFreedom (SamWilliams,O’Reilly2002), TheCathedral&The Bazaar (EricS.Raymond,O’Reilly2001),and OpenSources:VoicesfromtheOpen Source Revolution (DiBona et al., O’Reilly, 1999).
Thefundamentalpurposeofopensourcelicensingistodenyanybodytherightto exclusively exploitawork.Typically,inordertopermittheirworkstoreachabroad audience,and,incidentally,tomakesomesortoflivingfrommakingworks,creatorsarerequiredtosurrenderall,orsubstantiallyall,oftherightsgrantedbycopyrighttothoseentitiesthatarecapableofdistributingandtherebyexploitingthat work.
4 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
Becausetheseentities,bytheirverynature,donotseeworkas work inthefirst instance,butratherasthesourceofanincomestreamflowingfromitsexploitation, theyarejealousoftheirrighttoexclusiveexploitationofthework.Theyaresimilarlyreluctanttoshareanypartofthevalueoftheworkwithothers.Whilethe potentialconsumersofaliteraryormusicalworkwillbelimitedbythecostsof acquiringthework—coststhataresetexclusivelybythepersonorentitythatcontrolstherighttodistributeit—marketforceswilltendtoreducepricessoastomaximizereturnstothatpersonorentity.Becausethemarginalcostsofmechanical reproductionarerelativelylow,sellingmorecopiesofawork(atlowerprices)will generally result in a larger stream of income to the publisher.
Asaresult,publishersfiercelydefendthecopyrightedworkfromunauthorizeddistributionofcopiesoftheworkitselforcreationofderivativeworksbasedonthe work.Inthecaseofartisticworks,theproblemofunauthorizeddistributionofthe originalworkismorecommon.Whileunauthorizedderivativeworksoccasionally resultinlawsuitsorotherdisputes,thevalueofartisticoraestheticworksrelieson theiroriginalformofexpression:theyare“non-dynamic.”Consumerswanttohear BruceSpringsteen’s BornToRun andtoreadDaveEggers’ HeartbreakingWorkof StaggeringGenius;theymostlikelydonotwanttohearDaveEggers’ BornToRun or read Bruce Springsteen’s Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius Bycontrast,softwareisbothfunctionalanddynamic.Eachprogramcontainscode thatisbothfunctional,inthesensethatitdoeswork,* anddynamic,inthesensethat itcanperformthosefunctionsinanentirelydifferentcontext.Asaresult,eachprogramthatiscreatedpresentstwodistincttypesofvalue.Thefirstisitsformalpurposeasadatabaseoranotherapplication.Thesecondisapotentialsourceofcode for use in performing other functions.
Whenaconsumerpurchasesapieceofsoftware,say,MicrosoftExcel,sheacquires, alongwiththephysicalcopyofthesoftwareandthemanual(iftherearesuchphysicalcopies),therighttousethesoftwareforitsintendedpurpose—inthiscase,asa spreadsheetprogram.Byopeningtheplasticwraponthebox,theconsumer becomesboundbytheso-called“shrinkwraplicense”underwhichsheisboundnot tocopythework(beyondthesinglecopymadeforherownuse),nottomakederivativeworksbasedonthework,andnottoauthorizeanyoneelsetodoeitherofthese twothings.† Theeliminationofthesethreerestrictionsisthefoundationofopen source licensing.
*Thevalueofworkthatsimplyinspirespleasureintheobserverisself-evident.However,thefactthatsoftwareessentiallyoperateslikeatool—itismorelikeahandsawthanasunset—makesitfundamentallydifferent than a purely aesthetic creation.
†Such“shrinkwraplicenses”areprovidedwithvirtuallyeverycopyofcommercialsoftwaresoldtoday. Althoughsuchlicensesdonotpresenttheformalitiesthatpeopleusuallyassociatewithcontracts,theyare generallyenforcedasbindingcontracts. Spechtv.NetscapeComm.Corp.,00Civ.4871(AKS),2001WL 755396 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2001). The enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses is discussed in Chapter6.
Acomparableconsumerofopensourcelicensedsoftwareisinanentirelydifferent position.Shecanfreelydistribute(inexchangeforpaymentornot)copiesofthe workbecauseofthe“opendistribution”principle.Shecanfreelymodifythework anddistributethosederivativeworks(again,whetherinexchangeforpaymentor not),becauseofthe“openmodification”principle.Theonlysubstantiallimitation uponherexerciseoftheserightsthatanopensourcelicenseislikelytoimposeisthat thecopiesoftheworkthatshedistributes,whethertheoriginalworkorherown derivativework,bethemselveslicensedinamannerconsistentwiththeoriginal license.
Forexample,anopensourcelicensemayrequirethatderivativeworksbedistributedonthesametermsunderwhichthelicenseewaspermittedaccesstothework undertheoriginallicense.Thismeansthatthosepeoplewhoreceivecopiesofthese worksmustthemselvesbeabletoredistributetheoriginalandtomakederivative worksfromtheoriginal,subjectonlytothelimitationthattheyallowotherstodo thesame.Thisprincipleiscalled“generationallimitation.”* Thislimitationmay, dependingonthetermsoftheoriginallicense,preventopensourcecodefrom“going closed”andrequirethatusersandcontributorstothecodeabidebythecommunitarian values of open source.
Whileopensourcediffersfromtheoperationoftraditionalcopyrightlicensingby permittingbothopendistributionandopenmodification,theremovalofthesecond typeoflimitationisprobablythemoreimportantone.Byrequiringthatcopyright holdersbothmakeavailableauser-modifiablesourcecodeforprogramsthatthey distributeandbyrequiringthattheypermitthedevelopmentanddistributionof derivativeworks,opensourcelicensingmakespossiblethreesubstantialimprovements over traditional proprietary commercial software licensing models.
Thefirst,andperhapsthegreatest,ofthesebenefitsisinnovation.Itisnowwelldemonstratedthatprogrammersarewillingtocontributetoopensourceprojectsfor norewardotherthanthatofmakingaprogrammoreuseful.Opensourceworks. Themoreprogrammersthatcancontributetoagivenwork,themorevaluethat work is likely to have.†
Thesecondbenefitisreliability.Manyprogrammersmeansmanypeoplewhoare availabletodebugagivenprogram.Moreover,thebenefitisnotsimplyoneofnumbers.Aknowledgeableuser,whohaswitnessedfirsthandthelimitationsofaparticularapplicationortheeffectsofabugonaprogram’soperation,isgenerallyina betterpositiontoaddressthatlimitationortofixagivenbugthananemployeeof
*Theterm“copyleft”hasbeenusedtodescribethistypeofrestrictionofredistributionsofsuchaworkand derivativeworks.CopyleftisdescribedinmoredetailinChapter3.Becauselicensorscan(anddo)impose othertypesoflimitationsonsecondandsucceedinggenerationsofderivativeworks,copyleftisnotthe equivalent to a generational limitation but is rather one example of such a limitation.
†Thismaybeanothermeaningfuldistinctionbetweensoftwareandaestheticworks.Aestheticworksmay benefit less from contributions from many participants.
6 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
thecreatoroftheoriginalsoftware.Suchauseralmostcertainlyhasagreaterincentivetocorrectsuchashortcominginagivenpieceofcodethanasoftwarepublisher, wheresuggestionstomakesuchcorrectionsmustcompetenotonlywithotherperhapsmorepressingcorrections,butalsowiththepublisher’sownfinancialororganizational limitations.
Thethirdbenefitislongevity.Whencommerciallylicensedsoftwaregoes“outof print”andisnolongersupportedbyitspublisher,thereisgenerallynowaythatsoftwarecanbeupdatedoradaptedtonewuses.Suchsoftwarecomestoanevolutionarydeadend.Bycontrast,opensourcelicensedsoftwarecanfallintodisuseforsome periodbutstillberevived,adapted,orrewrittenbyasubsequentuserwhofindsa use for it—a use that may be completely different from the use originally intended.
Issues with Copyrights and Patents
Allofthelicensesdescribedinthisbookcanbebrokenupintotwoparts.Thefirst partassertsthatthepersongrantingthelicense,thelicensor,hastherighttolicense theworktowhichthelicenseapplies.Thisrepresentationmaybeimplicitorexplicit, andmaybelimitedtospecifictypesofrights.Alicensormay,forexample,assert thathehasonlyapplicablerightsundercopyrighttothelicensedworkandmakesno representationaboutpatentrightsthatmayapplytoit.Thesecondpartofevery licenseisagrant(again,howeverlimited)bythelicensortothelicenseeofrightsto that licensed work.
Obviously,bothpartsofthelicenseneedtobethereinorderforthelicensetobe effective.Whenthefirstpartofthelicenseisthereandthelicensorhasallofthe rightsnecessarytograntthemtothelicensee,theonlyquestionistherelationship betweenthelicensorandthelicenseeunderthetermsofthelicense.However,significantcomplicationsarisewhenathirdpartyhaslegitimatelegalclaimstothework purporting to be licensed.
Inthecaseofcopyrights,acreatorofanoriginalwork(definedinthelegal,notthe artisticsense),canconfidentlylicensethatwork,atleasttotheextenttowhichit maybegovernedbycopyrightlaw.Thecreator(hopefully)knowsthatheorshehas not plagiarized the work from another and therefore has the right to license it.
Patents,however,presentmorecomplicatedissues.Itismoredifficulttoobtainand retainapatentinthefirstplace,andthereisalwaysariskofpossible,andpossibly unknowing,infringementofapatentedprocessbythelicensor,and,accordingly,by his or her licensees.
Unlikecopyrightprotection,whichdoesnotevenrequirefilingoraformalnoticeon thecopyrightedwork,obtainingapatentfromtheOfficeofPatentandTrademark requiresfilingofrelativelycomplexandlaboriouspaperwork,including,most importantly,someexplanationofthenoveltyofthepatentinquestionandhowit differsfromprocessesormechanismsalreadyknown.Thisgenerallyrequiresthe
Issues with Copyrights and Patents | 7
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
participationofanexperiencedpatentlawyer.Butobtainingthepatentisnoteven halfthestruggle.Becauseoftheprofitabilityofpatentroyalties,patentholderstend tobeveryjealousoftheirrightsandpatroltheboundariesoftheirpatentsvigorously,attemptingthroughthecourtstoextendtheboundariesoftheirpatentsas muchaspossibleandatthesametimetonarrowthescopeofpatentsheldbyothers. Thiscanbe,asyoumayimagine,anextremelyexpensiveandtime-consumingordeal.
Evenifapatentholderhaslicensedthatpatentforuseinopensourcesoftware,they maynothavetheinclinationortheresourcestodefendthatpatent.Thismayhave substantiallynegativeconsequencesforthelicenseesofthatpatent.Althoughthelicenseemayhave,ingoodfaith,undertakentheuseofthelicensor’spatentinfullcompliancewiththetermsofthelicense,atsomepointinthefuture,thatpatentmaybe narrowedoreliminatedthroughlitigationbyarivalpatentholder.Becauseofthecontinuinguseofthatnarrowedoreliminatedpatent,thelicenseeoftheoriginalpatent maybeliabletoacompetingpatentholderforaclaimofinfringement.Itispossible thatsuchalicenseewouldwanttotakeactiontoprotectthelicensor’spatent,byinitiatingorparticipatinginpatentlitigationinsituationsinwhichthelicensorisunwilling or unable to defend the patent. This can, of course, get expensive.
Alargerproblemisthattheremaybepatentclaimsthatapplytothelicensedsoftwarebutareknowntoneitherthelicensornorthelicensee.Becauselicensorscan onlylicenseworksthatbelongtothem,theexistenceofaparticularsoftwarelicense isnoprotectionforthelicenseeagainstclaimsofinfringementthatarenotbrought bythelicensorbutbyathird-partypatentholder.Therearenoeasysolutionstothis problem. Software patents are frequently granted and often maddeningly vague.*
The Open Source Definition
Nowthatwehaveexaminedthebasicprinciplesofcopyrightandcontractandcontrastedtheoperationofthoseprincipleswiththoseofopensourcelicensing,itis worth discussing in some detail the definition of open source licensing.
TheOpenSourceDefinitionisthedefinitionpropoundedbytheOpenSourceInitiative,usedtodescribewhichlicensesqualifyas“OpenSource”licenses.TheOpen SourceInitiativealsocertifieslicensesasOSICertifiedtoindicatethattheyfall withintheOpenSourceDefinition.Wehavealreadyseenthebasicprinciplesof opensourcelicensing:opensourcelicensesmustpermitnon-exclusivecommercial exploitationofthelicensedwork,mustmakeavailablethework’ssourcecode,and mustpermitthecreationofderivativeworksfromtheworkitself.EachoftheseprinciplesisexpressedintheOpenSourceDefinition,and,aswewillseelater,inthe open source licenses discussed later in the book.
*Foramorethoroughdiscussionontheeffectsofpatentlawsandlicensingonopensourceandfreesource software,andacompellingargumentforlimitingtheapplicationofpatentlawtosoftware,see“TheDanger OfSoftwarePatents”in FreeSoftwareFreeSociety:SelectedEssaysofRichardM.Stallman (FreeSoftware Foundation, 2002).
8 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Open Source Definition* begins as follows:
Introduction
Opensourcedoesn’tjustmeanaccesstothesourcecode.Thedistributiontermsof open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
Thelicenseshallnotrestrictanypartyfromsellingorgivingawaythesoftwareasa componentofanaggregatesoftwaredistributioncontainingprogramsfromseveraldifferent sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Thisrequirementembodiestheopendistributionprinciplediscussedamomentago, withthevariationthatfreedistributionisrequiredonlyaspartofan“aggregatesoftwaredistribution.”ThisrelativelyminormodificationoftheopendistributionprinciplewasmadetoincludethePerlArtisticLicensedescribedinChapter4,underthe umbrellaofopensource.Thismodificationmaywellberemovedinfutureversions of the Open Source Definition.
2. Source Code
Theprogrammustincludesourcecode,andmustallowdistributioninsourcecodeas wellascompiledform.Wheresomeformofaproductisnotdistributedwithsource code,theremustbeawell-publicizedmeansofobtainingthesourcecodefornomore thanareasonablereproductioncost–preferably,downloadingviatheInternetwithout charge.Thesourcecodemustbethepreferredforminwhichaprogrammerwould modifytheprogram.Deliberatelyobfuscatedsourcecodeisnotallowed.Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Inordertomaketheopenmodificationprincipleeffectiveinsoftware,usersmust haveaccesstosourcecode.Thepreferredmethodofdistributionisforsourcecode tocomewiththecompiledcode.Asageneralmatter,however,distributorspreferto makesourcecodeavailableseparatelyfromthecompiledcodetolimitfilesizesand ease distribution.
3. Derived Works
Thelicensemustallowmodificationsandderivedworks,andmustallowthemtobe distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Thisparagraphconciselydescribestheopenmodificationprinciplethatisfundamentaltoopensourcelicensing.Thisparagraphalso permits,butdoesnotrequire, theimpositionofagenerationallimitation(suchascopyleft)bythelicense.Aswill bemadeclearinthenextchapter,suchagenerationallimitation,evenifpresentina particularlicense,maynotnecessarilybarsoftwarefrom“goingclosed”—being incorporatedintoproprietarycode—depending,ofcourse,onthetermsoftheparticular license.
*Thequotedsectionsarefromv1.9oftheOpenSourceDefinition.Thedefinitionisfrequentlyupdated. Check www.opensource.org for updates.
Open Source Definition | 9
4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
Thelicensemayrestrictsource-codefrombeingdistributedinmodifiedformonlyif thelicenseallowsthedistributionof“patchfiles”withthesourcecodeforthepurposeofmodifyingtheprogramatbuildtime.Thelicensemustexplicitlypermitdistributionofsoftwarebuiltfrommodifiedsourcecode.Thelicensemayrequirederived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. Thisisapermissive,notamandatory,partofthedefinition.Licensesmaylimitthe openmodificationprinciplebyrequiringdistributionsofmodifiedsourcecodeas originalsourcecodepluspatches,asdescribed,andstillfallwithinthedefinition. Thislicenseprovisionallowscreatorstoprotecttheintegrityoftheirwork(andpresumablyoftheirreputations)byrequiringthatmodificationsbeprovidedandidentifiedasseparatefromtheoriginalwork.Suchalimitation,however,canapplyonlyto thesourcecode.Inordertofallwithinthedefinition,thelicensemustpermitthefree distributionofcompiledcodeasmodified,althoughthelicensemayrequireadistinct name or number for the modified program.
Becauseofthelogisticalcomplicationscreatedbythedistributionofsourcecode with patch files, licenses that require such distribution are not recommended.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
Thelicensemustnotrestrictanyonefrommakinguseoftheprograminaspecificfield ofendeavor.Forexample,itmaynotrestricttheprogramfrombeingusedinabusiness, or from being used for genetic research.
Theseanti-discriminationprovisionsbanrestrictionsontheuseormodificationof codebyselectedpersonsorforparticularuses.Themotivationsbehindsuchrestrictionstendtobemoralorpolitical:abortionrightsactivistsmightopposetheuseof theircodebythoseopposedtoabortion;oilcompaniesmightobjecttoenvironmentalactivistsusingtheirwork,orviceversa.Howeverwell-intentionedsuchrestrictionsmaybe,theyareantitheticaltothenotionofopensourceand,inpractice,are damagingtoitsobjectives.Everylimitationontheuseofagivenpieceofcode restrictsthenumberofpotentialcontributors,andtherebylimitstheflexibility,reliability, and longevity of that code.
7. Distribution of License
Therightsattachedtotheprogrammustapplytoalltowhomtheprogramisredistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. Thisrequiresthatlicenseshavelegallyeffectiveprovisionsthatgivetheidentical rightstoandenforcethegenerationallimitations,ifany,onsecondandsubsequent generations of users.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
Therightsattachedtotheprogrammustnotdependontheprogram’sbeingpartofa particularsoftwaredistribution.Iftheprogramisextractedfromthatdistributionand
10 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
usedordistributedwithinthetermsoftheprogram’slicense,allpartiestowhomthe programisredistributedshouldhavethesamerightsasthosethataregrantedinconjunction with the original software distribution.
Thisprovisionisincludedtoclosealoopholeunderwhichindividualpartsofan aggregationofsoftwarewouldbedistributedunderadifferentlicensethantheaggregatepackage,whichwouldbelicensedunderopensource.Thisloopholeallowsa fairlyobviousend-runaroundopensourceprinciplesandisthereforeinconsistent with the purposes of open source licensing.
9. The License Must Not Restrict Other Software
Thelicensemustnotplacerestrictionsonothersoftwarethatisdistributedalongwith thelicensedsoftware.Forexample,thelicensemustnotinsistthatallotherprograms distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
Thisisnotreallyanopensourcelicensingquestionatall,butaquestionofthemannerinwhichsoftwaremaybedistributed.Itisincludednottodirectlyfurtherthe goalsofopensourcebuttoensurethefreedomofsoftwaredistributorsandtomaximize the availability of products licensed under open source licensing.
10. The License must be technology-neutral
Noprovisionofthelicensemaybepredicatedonanyindividualtechnologyorstyleof interface.
Thisisahousekeepingprovision.Somelicensesrequired,asaprecaution,thatauser takeanaffirmativeactiontoassenttothelicense,suchasmouse-clickingonaparticularbox.Becausesuchprovisionseffectivelyprohibitthedistributionoftheprograminmedia(likepaper)thatarenotcapableofinterpretingacceptancebythe user, these licenses effectively limit the free transmission of the code.
Warranties
Warrantydisclaimers,whilenotapartoftheopensourcedefinitionandnotnecessaryforalicensetofunctionasanopensourcelicense,arenonethelessverycommon in licenses.
Tounderstandtheeffectofthewarrantydisclaimer,ithelpstohavesomeunderstandingofwhatthetermsusedinitareandwhatitmeanstohaveawarrantyassociatedwithorimpliedbytheacquisitionofaparticularwork.Themostobvious formofwarrantyisan expresswarranty.Ifuponthesaleofaparticularitem,the sellerexplicitlystatestothebuyerthattheitembeingsold,say,ananswering machine,willperformaparticularfunction,say,automaticallyanswerincoming calls,thewarrantyispartofthesale.Intheeventtheproductdoesnotperformas stated,thebuyerhasaremedyagainsttheseller,generallyeithertohavethepriceof purchasereturnedortoreceiveanequivalentbutfunctioningiteminexchangefor thedefectiveone.Expresswarrantiesareverycommoninsalesofconsumergoods. Mystereospeakers,forexample,werewarrantiedagainstdefectsfor10yearsfrom the date of sale.
Warranties | 11
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
A warrantyofmerchantability isnotanexpresswarranty,butratheravarietyof impliedwarranty,awarrantycreatedbytheoperationoflaw,notbytheseller’sdecisiontomakeaparticularrepresentation.Thistypeofwarrantyisgenerallyapplicableonlytomerchants,personswhomakeabusinessinthesaleofparticulargoods. Thiswarrantyoperatesasageneralguaranteethatgoodssoldbyamerchantaresuitableforuseasgenerallyintended.Apurchaserwhobuysropefromahardwarestore, evenifthereisnoexpresswarranty,isnonethelessguaranteedthattheropewill functionasropegenerallydoes.Bycontrast,ifyoubuyacarfromyourcousin,who isnotacardealer,youhavenoguaranteethatthecarwillruninaparticularway,or even that it will run at all.
A warrantyoffitnessforaparticularpurpose liessomewherebetweenawarrantyof merchantabilityandanexpresswarranty.Likeawarrantyofmerchantability,itis impliedbylaw,andnotbyexpressguarantee;butlikeanexpresswarranty,itapplies toaparticularfunction.Itsnamedescribesitsfunction.Forexample,ifyoubuyrope inahardwarestore,andpriortothepurchaseyousaytothepersonsellingtherope, “ohandbythewayIamusingthisropetopullthecarIjustboughtfrommycousin outofaditch,”andthepersonsellingitsays,“ohyeah,it’sstrongenoughforthat,” awarrantyoffitnessforaparticularpurposeisimplied.Iftheropedoesnotwork, the buyer, again, has a remedy against the seller.
A warrantyagainstinfringement isatypeofwarrantyuniquetointellectualproperty. Suchawarrantyisaguaranteebytheseller,say,awriteroramusician,thatthework thatsheissellingisinfactaworkthatshehascopyrightto,generallybecausesheis the creator of the work.
Thisisprobablyagoodmomenttoaddress consequentialdamages.Asdescribed above,theremediesforabreachofoneofthewarrantiesjustdescribedincludethe familiaronesofthereturnofthepriceofpurchaseortheexchangeofthedefective item.However,underatleastsomecircumstances,asellerofadefectiveproduct maybeliableformorethanjustthesalepriceoftheitem.Ifthedefectintheitem causesdamagesofatypethatwerereasonablyforeseeableatthetimeofthesale,the selleroftheitemcouldbeliablefordamagesthatflowedfromthedefect.These damagesareoftenfargreaterthanthesalepriceoftheitemandareknownas consequentialdamages.Suppose,forexample,themanufacturerofabrandofcoffeemakersmakesaparticularmodelofcoffeemakerthat,contrarytoitswarranty,willstart afireifleftonformorethanfourhours.Ifoneofthosecoffeemakersstartsafirethat burnsdownthehouseoftheunfortunatepurchaserofthatcoffeemaker,themanufacturermayberesponsiblenotonlyforreimbursingthepriceofthecoffeemaker, theso-called directdamages,butalsoforthevalueofthehouseandcontents,thereasonably foreseeable consequential damages flowing from the defect.
12 | Chapter1:Open Source Licensing, Contract, and Copyright Law
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
AsdescribedinChapter7,warrantydisclaimerscanalsoproduce businessopportunitiesfordeveloperswillingtosigncontractstoprovidesupportforproductsthatcomewithoutawarrantyotherwise. However,thesecontractsareusuallyinadditiontotheopensource license, not a part of it.
Inlightofthepotentialliability,disclaimersofwarrantieslikethatintheMIT License,describedinChapter2,arecommonlyfoundinopensourcelicenses.Theuse ofsuchdisclaimersisnotnecessarilyfoolproof,however.Acontraryrepresentationor agreement,particularlyonemadeaspartofasale,mayendupnullifyingthedisclaimerandresultinliabilityattachingatleasttothepersonmakingtherelevantrepresentationorenteringintotheparticularagreement.Inaddition,stateorfederallaw maylimittheenforcementortheeffectivenessofsuchdisclaimers.Accordingly,licensors should consult with an experienced lawyer before relying on such disclaimers.
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Warranties | 13
The MIT, BSD, Apache, and Academic Free Licenses
TheMITandBSDLicensesweretwooftheearliestopensourcelicenses.Because theselicensesarerelativelystraightforwardandillustratesomeofthebasicprinciplesofopensourcelicensing,theyaredescribedherefirst.TheMIT(orX),BSD,and ApacheLicensesareclassicopensourcelicensingsoftwarelicensesandareusedin manyopensourceprojects.Themostwell-knownoftheseareprobablytheBSDNet and FreeBSD Unix-like operating systems and the Apache HTTP Server. Theselicenses,asappliedtotheoriginallicensedcode,allowthatcodetobeusedin proprietarysoftwareanddonotrequirethatopensourceversionsofthecodebedistributed.Codecreatedundertheselicenses,orderivedfromsuchcode,maygo “closed”anddevelopmentscanbemadeunderthatproprietarylicense,whichare losttotheopensourcecommunity.Forthesamereason,however,theselicensesare very flexible and compatible with almost every form of open source license.
Ifyou’reinterestedinlicensesthatkeepcodefrombeingusedinproprietary software, look ahead to Chapter3.
TheAcademicFreeLicenseisasomewhatmoreelaboratelicense,embodyingmany ofthesameprovisionsfoundintheMIT,BSD,andApacheLicenses;inaddition,it includescertainclausesaddressingtheapplicationofpatentrightstoopensource software.
The MIT (or X) License
The MIT License, the simplest license in this book, begins as follows:
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permissionisherebygranted,freeofcharge,toanypersonobtainingacopyofthis softwareandassociateddocumentationfiles(the“Software”),todealintheSoftware withoutrestriction,includingwithoutlimitationtherightstouse,copy,modify,
merge,publish,distribute,sublicense,and/orsellcopiesoftheSoftware,andtopermitpersonstowhomtheSoftwareisfurnishedtodoso,subjecttothefollowing conditions:
The<year>and<copyrightholder>tagsobviouslyrefertothedateofpublicationof thecodeandthepersoninwhomcopyrightisvested,whichisgenerallygoingtobe thecreatorofthecode.Thispartofthelicenseessentiallysurrendersalloftherights thatthecopyrightholdertypicallyreceives,including,asdiscussedintheprevious chapter,theexclusiverighttocommerciallyexploittheworkandtodevelopderivativeworksfromthework.Inaddition,thelicenseemay,butneednot,permititsown licensees to exercise these same rights.
This grant of rights is subject to two conditions:
Theabovecopyrightnoticeandthispermissionnoticeshallbeincludedinallcopiesor substantial portions of the Software.
And:
THESOFTWAREISPROVIDED“ASIS”,WITHOUTWARRANTYOFANYKIND, EXPRESSORIMPLIED,INCLUDINGBUTNOTLIMITEDTOTHEWARRANTIESOFMERCHANTABILITY,FITNESSFORAPARTICULARPURPOSEAND NONINFRINGEMENT.INNOEVENTSHALLTHEAUTHORSORCOPYRIGHT HOLDERSBELIABLEFORANYCLAIM,DAMAGESOROTHERLIABILITY, WHETHERINANACTIONOFCONTRACT,TORTOROTHERWISE,ARISING FROM,OUTOFORINCONNECTIONWITHTHESOFTWAREORTHEUSE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. [all caps in original]
Thefirstofthesetwoconditionsisalmostuniversalinopensourcelicensingand servesthestraightforwardandnecessarypurposeofalertingfutureusersofthework oftherestrictionsonit.(Copyrightlawsusedtorequirethatcopyrightedworkscarry anexplicitnoticeinpublishedformstoreceivecopyrightprotection.)Thesecondof thetwoconditionsprovidesthewarrantydisclaimerdescribedinthepreviouschapter.
The BSD License
TheBSDLicense,whichisonlyslightlymorerestrictivethantheMITLicense,exists inanumberofsubstantiallysimilarforms.ThefollowingexampleistheUCB/LBL form,namedaftertheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyandtheLawrenceBerkeley Laboratory.
This license, like the MIT License, begins:
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.
Redistributionanduseinsourceandbinaryforms,withorwithoutmodification,are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Thecopyrightnoticeandtheattributionaresubstantiallythesameasthoseinthe MITLicense.Again,thelicenseshouldreflecttheactualyearofcopyrightandthe correct name of the creator.
The BSD License | 15
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
Prior to 1999, the BSD License contained the following provision: Alladvertisingmaterialsmentioningfeaturesoruseofthissoftwaremustdisplaythe followingacknowledgement:ThisproductincludessoftwaredevelopedbytheUniversity of California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
Thisprovisionseemsrelativelyinnocuous.Itseemsbothreasonableandnaturalthat thecreator,havingsurrenderedtheexclusiverighttocommerciallyexploitawork, shouldreceivecreditnotonlyintheacknowledgmentofrightsbutintheadvertising aswell.Itdoesnotchallengetheessentialpremisesofopensource,asitdoesnotlimit thescopeoftheuseofthesoftwareinanydirectway.Nonetheless,thepre-1999BSD Licensesometimescausesproblemsbecauseofthisclause.Theprinciplesofopen sourceendorsethecommercialexploitationofsoftware,includingthesaleofsoftware,manuals,andsupportforprofit.Suchcommercialexploitationverywellmay includeadvertisingandwhenanopensourceprojectdrawsfromanumberofpredecessors,therequirementofincludingsuchreferencescanbecomearealburden.The BSDLicense,however,wasamendedin1999andthisclausewasremoved.TheUniversityofCaliforniarescindedthisclauseandtotheextentitmaystillbefoundin BSD files licensed by the University of California, it no longer has any legal effect.
TheremainderofthelicenselargelymirrorstheeffectoftheprovisionsoftheMIT Licensealreadydescribed,byconditioningdistribution—whetherinmodifiedform or not—on the maintenance of the conditions already described:
Redistributionanduseinsourceandbinaryforms,withorwithoutmodification,are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributionsofsourcecodemustretaintheabovecopyrightnotice,thislistofconditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributionsinbinaryformmustreproducetheabovecopyrightnotice,thislistof conditionsandthefollowingdisclaimerinthedocumentationand/orothermaterials provided with the distribution.
Neitherthenameofthe<ORGANIZATION>northenamesofitscontributorsmay beusedtoendorseorpromoteproductsderivedfromthissoftwarewithoutspecific prior written permission.
Withtheclauseaboutadvertisingremoved(formerly,thethirdclauseinthelicense), theonlysubstantialdifferencebetweenthislicenseandtheMITLicenseisthenonattributionprovisioninthelastclause.Thisprovisionrequirespriorpermissionfor useofthenameofthecreator,anditprotectsthereputationofthecreatorfrom beingexplicitlyassociatedwithderivativeversionsoftheprogram.Suchrestrictions permitcreatorstoprotectthemselvesfromtheinjurytotheirreputationsthatcan resultfromassociationwithadefectiveorpoorlywrittenprogram,whilestillallowing others to use or modify a work.
The final provision is a disclaimer of warranties:
THISSOFTWAREISPROVIDEDBYTHEREGENTSANDCONTRIBUTORS“AS IS”ANDANYEXPRESSORIMPLIEDWARRANTIES,INCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,THEIMPLIEDWARRANTIESOFMERCHANTABILITYANDFITNESS
16 | Chapter2:The MIT, BSD, Apache, and Academic Free Licenses
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
FORAPARTICULARPURPOSEAREDISCLAIMED.INNOEVENTSHALLTHE REGENTSORCONTRIBUTORSBELIABLEFORANYDIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL,SPECIAL,EXEMPLARY,ORCONSEQUENTIALDAMAGES(INCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,PROCUREMENTOFSUBSTITUTEGOODSOR SERVICES;LOSSOFUSE,DATA,ORPROFITS;ORBUSINESSINTERRUPTION) HOWEVERCAUSEDANDONANYTHEORYOFLIABILITY,WHETHERIN CONTRACT,STRICTLIABILITY,ORTORT(INCLUDINGNEGLIGENCEOR OTHERWISE)ARISINGINANYWAYOUTOFTHEUSEOFTHISSOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Thisprovisionspecificallydisclaimsanyexpresswarranty,aswellasthewarranties ofmerchantabilityandfitnessforaparticularpurpose,anditoperatesmuchlikethe disclaimer in the MIT License.
The Apache License, v1.1 and v2.0
TheApacheLicenseisverysimilartotheBSDandMITLicensesalreadydescribed. TheApacheLicense,Version1.1,followssubstantiallythesamepatternastheBSD Licenseinpremisingdistributionandmodificationuponcompliancewithrelatively unrestrictiveterms.Version2.0,atop-downrewritingofthelicense,wasfirstpublished in 2004 and is described in detail later.
The Apache License, v1.1
Version1.1isslightlylongerthanthelicensesdiscussedearlierinthechapter,butit operates in much the same way.
Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation.
All rights reserved.
Redistributionanduseinsourceandbinaryforms,withorwithoutmodification,are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributionsofsourcecodemustretaintheabovecopyrightnotice,thislistof conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.Redistributionsinbinaryformmustreproducetheabovecopyrightnotice,thislist ofconditionsandthefollowingdisclaimerinthedocumentationand/orothermaterials provided with the distribution.
Thecopyrightnotice,theclauseintroducingthelimitationsondistribution,andthe first two limitations are substantially identical to those in the BSD License.
3.Theend-userdocumentationincludedwiththeredistribution,ifany,mustinclude thefollowingacknowledgment:“Thisproductincludessoftwaredevelopedbythe Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).”
Alternately,thisacknowledgmentmayappearinthesoftwareitself,ifandwherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
The Apache License, v1.1 and v2.0 | 17
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
TheApacheLicensedoesnothavethecumbersomeadvertisingclauseinthe rescindedversionoftheBSDLicense,butitrequiresanacknowledgmentofthecreator’s contribution to the work being distributed.
4.Thenames“Apache”and“ApacheSoftwareFoundation”mustnotbeusedto endorseorpromoteproductsderivedfromthissoftwarewithoutpriorwrittenpermission. For written permission, please contact apache@apache.org.
LiketheBSDLicense,theApacheLicensecontainsanon-attributionprovision, which protects the reputation of the creator.
5.Productsderivedfromthissoftwaremaynotbecalled“Apache”normay“Apache” appearintheirname,withoutpriorwrittenpermissionoftheApacheSoftwareFoundation.
Liketheprovisionjustdiscussed,thisprovisionpreventsthepossiblydamagingassociation of the creator with derivative works created from the original code. Finally,theApacheLicenseincludesawarrantydisclaimerprovisionsubstantially similar to those already described.
THISSOFTWAREISPROVIDED“ASIS”ANDANYEXPRESSEDORIMPLIED WARRANTIES,INCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,THEIMPLIEDWARRANTIESOFMERCHANTABILITYANDFITNESSFORAPARTICULARPURPOSE AREDISCLAIMED.INNOEVENTSHALLTHEAPACHESOFTWAREFOUNDATIONORITSCONTRIBUTORSBELIABLEFORANYDIRECT,INDIRECT,INCIDENTAL,SPECIAL,EXEMPLARY,ORCONSEQUENTIALDAMAGES (INCLUDING,BUTNOTLIMITEDTO,PROCUREMENTOFSUBSTITUTE GOODSORSERVICES;LOSSOFUSE,DATA,ORPROFITS;ORBUSINESS INTERRUPTION)HOWEVERCAUSEDANDONANYTHEORYOFLIABILITY, WHETHERINCONTRACT,STRICTLIABILITY,ORTORT(INCLUDINGNEGLIGENCEOROTHERWISE)ARISINGINANYWAYOUTOFTHEUSEOFTHIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Thelicensecloseswithclausesidentifyingthecontributorstothecodebeingdistributed.Thesearenot,strictlyspeaking,partsofthelicenseastheyimposenoobligation on the user.
Thissoftwareconsistsofvoluntarycontributionsmadebymanyindividualsonbehalf oftheApacheSoftwareFoundation.FormoreinformationontheApacheSoftware Foundation, please see <http://www.apache.org/>.
Portionsofthissoftwarearebaseduponpublicdomainsoftwareoriginallywrittenat theNationalCenterforSupercomputingApplications,UniversityofIllinois,UrbanaChampaign.
The Apache License, v2.0
ReleasedinJanuary,2004,theApacheLicense,v2.0,isathoroughrevisionofthe ApacheLicense.WhiletheApacheLicense,v1.1,operatesmuchlikeaBSDorMIT Licensewithanon-endorsementprovisionbarringtheuseoftheApachenamewithoutpermission,v2.0isafullerandmorecomplexlicense,layingoutinmorespecific
18 | Chapter2:The MIT, BSD, Apache, and Academic Free Licenses
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
detailtherightsgranted.Inparticular,v2.0differsinthatitexpresslyaddressesboth patentrightsbeinggrantedbythelicenseandtheuseofotherlicensesforderivative worksbasedonworkslicensedunderv2.0.Perhapsmostimportantly,v2.0provides for“Contributions”tothelicensedworkthataremadewiththeexpressunderstanding that they will become part of the licensed work and will be governed by v2.0.
After the introductory phrases, definitions appear.
Apache License
Version 2.0, January 2004
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
1. Definitions.
“License”shallmeanthetermsandconditionsforuse,reproductionanddistribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
“Licensor”shallmeanthecopyrightownerorentityauthorizedbythecopyright owner that is granting the License.
Thesetermsarebothself-explanatory.The“License”isthisdocument.TheLicensoristhatpersonwithabilityandinclinationtogranttherightsdescribedinthe License.
“LegalEntity”shallmeantheunionoftheactingentityandallotherentitiesthatcontrol,arecontrolledby,orareundercommoncontrolwiththatentity.Forthepurposesofthisdefinition,“control”means(i)thepower,directorindirect,tocausethe directionormanagementofsuchentity,whetherbycontractorotherwise,or(ii)ownershipoffiftypercent(50%)ormoreoftheoutstandingshares,or(iii)beneficialownership of such entity.
“LegalEntity”,substantiallysimilartotheMozillaPublicLicensedescribedinthe nextchapter,providesthatcomplexlystructuredorganizations,suchasmanylarge corporations, are considered to be one entity for the purposes of this license.*
“You”(or“Your”)shallmeananindividualorLegalEntityexercisingpermissions granted by this License.
“You” is equivalent to the licensee, i.e., the party that is bound by the license.
“Source”formshallmeanthepreferredformformakingmodifications,includingbut not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.
Thisdefinitionisaslightlymoreexpansiveformoftheterm“sourcecode,” expandedtoincludedocumentation,source,andconfiguration,includingallinformationnecessaryorusefulinmodifyingorcreatingaderivativeworkfromapieceof code.
*AsdiscussedinChapter3,suchaprovisionmaysimplifycompliancebythelicenseewiththetermsofthe license but may not be enforceable in every case.
The Apache License, v1.1 and v2.0 | 19
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
“Object”formshallmeananyformresultingfrommechanicaltransformationortranslationofaSourceform,includingbutnotlimitedtocompiledobjectcode,generated documentation, and conversions to other media types.
Thisdefinitionisalsoamoreexpansiveformofwhatisgenerallyreferredtoasthe executableformofcode,compiledsothat,whenrun,thecodeperformsafunction or functions.
“Work”shallmeantheworkofauthorship,whetherinSourceorObjectform,made availableundertheLicense,asindicatedbyacopyrightnoticethatisincludedinor attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
Thisterm“Work”issubstantiallysimilartoworkasthattermisusedincopyright lawandthroughoutthisbook.“Work”isthecopyrightedworkthatisthesubjectof the license.
“DerivativeWorks”shallmeananywork,whetherinSourceorObjectform,thatis basedon(orderivedfrom)theWorkandforwhichtheeditorialrevisions,annotations,elaborations,orothermodificationsrepresent,asawhole,anoriginalworkof authorship.ForthepurposesofthisLicense,DerivativeWorksshallnotincludeworks thatremainseparablefrom,ormerelylink(orbindbyname)totheinterfacesof,the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
Thisdefinition,“DerivativeWorks,”isalsosubstantiallysimilartothetermderivativeworkasusedincopyrightlawandinthisbook.Itmeansaworkthatisamodificationoforotherwisederivedfromtheoriginalwork.Thisdefinitionexcludes certaincombinationsofworks:whenanotherworkmerelylinkstotheinterfacesof the“Work”itdoesnotbecomea“DerivativeWork,”asthattermisusedinthis license.Thisisanimportantdistinction,asspecificlimitationsapplyunderthe License to Derivative Works, explained later.
“Contribution”shallmeananyworkofauthorship,includingtheoriginalversionof theWorkandanymodificationsoradditionstothatWorkorDerivativeWorks thereof,thatisintentionallysubmittedtoLicensorforinclusionintheWorkbythe copyrightownerorbyanindividualorLegalEntityauthorizedtosubmitonbehalfof thecopyrightowner.Forthepurposesofthisdefinition,“submitted”meansanyform ofelectronic,verbal,orwrittencommunicationsenttotheLicensororitsrepresentatives,includingbutnotlimitedtocommunicationonelectronicmailinglists,source codecontrolsystems,andissuetrackingsystemsthataremanagedby,oronbehalfof, theLicensorforthepurposeofdiscussingandimprovingtheWork,butexcluding communicationthatisconspicuouslymarkedorotherwisedesignatedinwritingby the copyright owner as “Not a Contribution.”
A“Contribution”isaspecificmodificationtotheWorkthatisprovidedtotheoriginalLicensorfortheexplicitpurposeofbeingincludedintheWork.ALicensee undertheLicensemaychoosetomodifytheWorkandtocreateaseparateDerivativeWorksubjecttothetermsoftheLicense.Alicenseemayalsochoosetosubmit thatmodificationtotheLicensorintheformofaContribution,and,ifaccepted,that ContributionbecomespartoftheoriginalWork,underthecopyrightandcontrolof theLicensor.Theoriginalworkwithanysuch“Contributions,”obviously,willcontinue to be licensed under v2.0.
20 | Chapter2:The MIT, BSD, Apache, and Academic Free Licenses
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
“Contributor”shallmeanLicensorandanyindividualorLegalEntityonbehalfof whomaContributionhasbeenreceivedbyLicensorandsubsequentlyincorporated within the Work.
ThisisacommonsensereflectionofContribution:aLicenseewhomakesaContributionisaContributor.TheoriginalLicensorisalsoaContributor,asthattermis used in the License.
2. Grant of Copyright License.
SubjecttothetermsandconditionsofthisLicense,eachContributorherebygrantsto Youaperpetual,worldwide,non-exclusive,no-charge,royalty-free,irrevocablecopyrightlicensetoreproduce,prepareDerivativeWorksof,publiclydisplay,publiclyperform,sublicense,anddistributetheWorkandsuchDerivativeWorksinSourceor Object form.
Thisprovisionis,asdescribedinitstitle,thegrantofcopyrightlicense.Thelicense grantedisirrevocableandroyaltyfreeandgrantsLicenseesalltherightsavailable undercopyright,includingtherighttoreproduceanddistributetheWorkandDerivativeWorks.AspartofmakingaContribution,aContributorhasconsentedtomaking a grant of rights as to the Contribution on the same terms as the original Work.
UnliketheBSD,MIT,andtheApacheLicense,v1.1,theApacheLicense,v2.0,also explicitly grants rights under a patent claims that may exist in the original Work.
3. Grant of Patent License.
SubjecttothetermsandconditionsofthisLicense,eachContributorherebygrantsto Youaperpetual,worldwide,non-exclusive,no-charge,royalty-free,irrevocable (exceptasstatedinthissection)patentlicensetomake,havemade,use,offertosell, sell,import,andotherwisetransfertheWork,wheresuchlicenseappliesonlytothose patentclaimslicensablebysuchContributorthatarenecessarilyinfringedbytheir Contribution(s)aloneorbycombinationoftheirContribution(s)withtheWorkto whichsuchContribution(s)wassubmitted.IfYouinstitutepatentlitigationagainst anyentity(includingacross-claimorcounterclaiminalawsuit)allegingthattheWork oraContributionincorporatedwithintheWorkconstitutesdirectorcontributory patentinfringement,thenanypatentlicensesgrantedtoYouunderthisLicensefor that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Thispatentlicenseonlygrantstheirrevocable,royalty-freelicensetotheextentthat suchpatentrightsarenecessarytousetheoriginalWork(andContributions thereto).ThisgrantdoesnotextendtopatentrightsthatmayinhereintheWork separateandapartfromtheWorkitself.LiketheAcademicFreeLicense,described inthenextsection,intheeventthataLicenseeinitiatespatentlitigationagainstany ContributoronthebasisthatanypartoftheWorkinfringesonapatent,theLicense terminatesastothatLicenseeasofthedatethatlitigationisfiled.Thispreventsthe situationinwhichapartyisgettingthebenefitoftherightstotheWorkunderthe LicensewhileatthesametimesuingtheLicensororContributorunderaclaimof patent infringement.*
*Thistreatmentofpatentlitigationrendersv2.0incompatiblewiththeGNUGeneralPublicLicense described in the next chapter. See http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html.
The Apache License, v1.1 and v2.0 | 21
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
RedistributionoftheWorkorDerivativeWorkscreatedbythelicenseetherefromis permitted to that licensee subject to certain, relatively limited, restrictions.
4. Redistribution.
YoumayreproduceanddistributecopiesoftheWorkorDerivativeWorksthereofin anymedium,withorwithoutmodifications,andinSourceorObjectform,provided that You meet the following conditions:
1.YoumustgiveanyotherrecipientsoftheWorkorDerivativeWorksacopyof this License; and
2.YoumustcauseanymodifiedfilestocarryprominentnoticesstatingthatYou changed the files; and
3.Youmustretain,intheSourceformofanyDerivativeWorksthatYoudistribute,allcopyright,patent,trademark,andattributionnoticesfromtheSourceform oftheWork,excludingthosenoticesthatdonotpertaintoanypartoftheDerivative Works; and
4.IftheWorkincludesa“NOTICE”textfileaspartofitsdistribution,thenany DerivativeWorksthatYoudistributemustincludeareadablecopyoftheattributionnoticescontainedwithinsuchNOTICEfile,excludingthosenoticesthatdo notpertaintoanypartoftheDerivativeWorks,inatleastoneofthefollowing places:withinaNOTICEtextfiledistributedaspartoftheDerivativeWorks; withintheSourceformordocumentation,ifprovidedalongwiththeDerivative Works;or,withinadisplaygeneratedbytheDerivativeWorks,ifandwherever suchthird-partynoticesnormallyappear.ThecontentsoftheNOTICEfilearefor informationalpurposesonlyanddonotmodifytheLicense.YoumayaddYour ownattributionnoticeswithinDerivativeWorksthatYoudistribute,alongsideor asanaddendumtotheNOTICEtextfromtheWork,providedthatsuchadditional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
Thesetermsgivefairnoticetothelicensee’sdistributees—thosepeoplereceivinga copyoftheWorkoraDerivativeWorkfromalicensee—ofthetermsofthelicense applicabletotheWork;themodifications,ifany,madetotheWork;thecopyright, patent,andtrademarknoticespresentintheoriginalWork;and,ifapplicable,the Notice file distributed with the Work.
ThelastparagraphofthissectionmakesexplicitwhatisimplicitintheMIT,BSD, andApacheLicense,v1.1,whichisthatthecreatorofaDerivativeWorkbasedon theWorkmaylicensethatDerivativeWorkunderalicenseotherthanthatapplicable to the original work.
YoumayaddYourowncopyrightstatementtoYourmodificationsandmayprovide additionalordifferentlicensetermsandconditionsforuse,reproduction,ordistributionofYourmodifications,orforanysuchDerivativeWorksasawhole,provided Youruse,reproduction,anddistributionoftheWorkotherwisecomplieswiththe conditions stated in this License.
Theapplicationofdifferentlicenseterms(whichmayincludeproprietarylicense terms)ispermittedsolongasthetermsofthatlicensecomplywiththeLicense. ThereisnorequirementthattheLicensorofsuchaDerivativeWorkmakeavailable thesourcecodefortheDerivativeWorkorotherwiselicenseitunderanopensource or free software license.
22 | Chapter2:The MIT, BSD, Apache, and Academic Free Licenses
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition Copyright © 2004 O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
5. Submission of Contributions.
UnlessYouexplicitlystateotherwise,anyContributionintentionallysubmittedfor inclusionintheWorkbyYoutotheLicensorshallbeunderthetermsandconditions ofthisLicense,withoutanyadditionaltermsorconditions.Notwithstandingthe above,nothinghereinshallsupersedeormodifythetermsofanyseparatelicense agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. ThissectionmakesclearwhatwasimplicitinthedefinitionofContributionalready described.BymakingaContribution,theContributoragreesthattheContribution shallbegovernedbythetermsoftheLicenseunlessanother,specificagreementis made with the Licensor.
6. Trademarks.
ThisLicensedoesnotgrantpermissiontousethetradenames,trademarks,service marks,orproductnamesoftheLicensor,exceptasrequiredforreasonableandcustomaryuseindescribingtheoriginoftheWorkandreproducingthecontentofthe NOTICE file.
AswasthecasewiththeApacheLicense,v1.1,licenseesarenotgrantedanytrademarkrightsandareprohibitedfromassociatingthenameoftheLicensorwiththeir DerivativeWorks(ortheirdistributionoftheoriginalWork),exceptasnecessaryto give notice of the source of the work.
7. Disclaimer of Warranty.
Unlessrequiredbyapplicablelaworagreedtoinwriting,LicensorprovidestheWork (andeachContributorprovidesitsContributions)onan“ASIS”BASIS,WITHOUT WARRANTIESORCONDITIONSOFANYKIND,eitherexpressorimplied,including,withoutlimitation,anywarrantiesorconditionsofTITLE,NON-INFRINGEMENT,MERCHANTABILITY,orFITNESSFORAPARTICULARPURPOSE.You aresolelyresponsiblefordeterminingtheappropriatenessofusingorredistributing theWorkandassumeanyrisksassociatedwithYourexerciseofpermissionsunder this License.
8. Limitation of Liability.
Innoeventandundernolegaltheory,whetherintort(includingnegligence),contract,orotherwise,unlessrequiredbyapplicablelaw(suchasdeliberateandgrossly negligentacts)oragreedtoinwriting,shallanyContributorbeliabletoYoufordamages,includinganydirect,indirect,special,incidental,orconsequentialdamagesof anycharacterarisingasaresultofthisLicenseoroutoftheuseorinabilitytousethe Work(includingbutnotlimitedtodamagesforlossofgoodwill,workstoppage,computerfailureormalfunction,oranyandallothercommercialdamagesorlosses),even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
ThesetwoprovisionsoperatethesamewayasthoseprovisionsintheMIT,BSD,and ApacheLicense,v1.1,indisclaimingwarrantiesandlimitingliabilities,exceptunder circumstances where a Contributor has explicitly undertaken to provide a warranty.
9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability.
WhileredistributingtheWorkorDerivativeWorksthereof,Youmaychoosetooffer, andchargeafeefor,acceptanceofsupport,warranty,indemnity,orotherliability obligationsand/orrightsconsistentwiththisLicense.However,inacceptingsuch
The Apache License, v1.1 and v2.0 | 23
This is the Title of the Book, eMatter Edition
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
— Se on kunnia. Ellei asiaa saada täysin selväksi, ellei Olavin syyttömyys tule epäämättömän varmasti ilmi, jää hänen kunniaansa tahra, joka voi synkentää koko hänen elämänsä.
Annikki oli painunut syvälle tuoliinsa. Hän koetti hillitä tunteitaan, mutta turhaan. Setä oli varmasti oikeassa: kunniakysymys oli tässä jutussa Olaville pääasia. Yhtäkkiä hän tunsi olevansa niin voimaton, väsynyt. Turhaan yritti hän taistella kyyneleitä vastaan. Niitä nousi silmiin ja vieri hitaasti, kirvelien, yli poskien ja putosi povelle.
Rehtori Kuusinen vaikeni. Se oli varmaan hänen pikku ystävättärensä ensimmäinen suuri suru, joka ajoi esille noita kristallihelmiä. Perhetuttavana hän oli nähnyt Annikin kasvavan pikku typykästä soreaksi neidoksi, oli leikkinyt hänen kanssaan ja lohduttanut häntä pikku suruissa. Mutta nyt hän ei löytänyt sanoja.
Samassa koputettiin ovelle. Rehtori Kuusista kysyttiin alakerroksessa.
Rehtori nousi ja sivellen rauhoittavasti Annikin kättä virkahti:
— Odotahan täällä. Koetetaan katsoa, olisiko sittenkin jokin keino.
Annikki oli yksin. »Olisiko sittenkin jokin keino», oli rehtori sanonut. Mutta Annikki oli kuullut jo äänestä, ettei hän uskonut mitään keinoa olevan.
Hän nousi ylös tarkastamaan pöytälampun valossa kelloaan. Jo kymmenen!
Kahden tunnin kuluttua olisi juhla lopussa. Ja loppuvaksi tanssimatta?
Hän painoi nyrkit ohimoilleen ja koetti selvittää ajatuksiaan.
Yhtäkkiä häneltä pääsi hiljainen huudahdus. Rehtorin kirjoituspöydällä olevasta paperipinkasta oli hänen silmiinsä osunut eräs liuska, jonka erikoinen paperi heti kiinnitti hänen huomiotaan. Nopeasti hän sieppasi sen käteensä. Hänen silmiinsä syttyi välke, kun hän tarkasti sitä huolellisesti.
Kaikki väsymys ja toivottomuus oli kuin poispyyhkäisty. Hetken hän selaili pöydällä olevaa osoitekalenteria ja jätti sitten kevein askelin rehtorinkanslian.
Vihdoinkin, vihdoinkin! Viime hetkessä johtolanka!
Käytävässä hän tapasi Aavan ja Hongan.
— Pian, tulkaa mukaan! huusi hän heille iloisesti.
— Hakekaa te, Honka, auto. Hyvä umpinainen vaunu. Ja sinä, Antti, tule sinä auttamaan minua päällysvaatteitteni etsinnässä. En tällä hetkellä muista, minne ne vein. Kas niin, älkää nyt olko noin hölmistyneen näköisiä, vaan tehkää niinkuin sanoin.
Annikin huomautus oli paikallaan. Molemmat nuorukaiset tuijottivat häneen ällistyneinä.
— Saaplari, tästä ei mun tyhmä pääni ymmärrä niin mitään!
— Ei teidän vielä tarvitsekaan ymmärtää, Honka, vastasi Annikki nauraen. — Hankkikaa vain auto, niin että pääsemme pienelle automatkalle, me kolme. Kyllä minä sitten kerron.
— No jaa, myöntyi Honka. — Saaman pitää. Onhan Jätti-Matilla Luojan armosta pitkät koivet.
Kun he olivat jääneet kahden, virkahti Aava epäluuloisesti:
— Etköhän jo sanoisi, mistä on kysymys? Et kai vain luule saaneesi kiinni joistakin todistuksista Linnan hyväksi?
— En luule mitään. Minä tiedän, miten tuo päiväkirjan lehti on kadonnut, oli reipas vastaus.
— Jos se on vain sitä samaa lajia päättelyä kuin äsken tuolla ylhäällä, niin…
— Oh, älä huoli kantaa minulle kaunaa siitä, mitä siellä sanoin, virkkoi Annikki sovinnollisena. — Puhuimmehan me molemmat vähän harkitsemattomuuksia, vai kuinka?
Aava hymähti vastaamatta.
— Lopullisen selvyyden saamiseksiko tämä automatka nyt on tarpeen? kysyi hän sitten.
— Niin. Tule nyt vain.
Aava katsoi pitkään edellä rientävää solakkaa neitosta. Hänen kasvoillaan oli miettiväinen ilme vielä sittenkin, kun hän etsi Annikin päällysvaatteita. Auttaessaan tyttöä pukeutumaan niihin, sanoi hän vakavasti:
— En voi muuta kuin sanoa, että olet ihmeellinen tyttö, jos tämän jutun selvität. Jos Olavi on syytön, en hetkeäkään epäile tunnustaa menettelymme häntä kohtaan olleen pitkin linjaa kohtuutonta. No niin, ei sitä vielä tiedä.
Annikki nauroi iloisesti.
— Mutta pian sen saat tietää.
Hänen mielensä oli jälleen niin kevyt. Kaikki synkät, vihamieliset ajatukset olivat menneet sen tien. Elämä oli jälleen valoisaa, ihanaa.
Honka oli jo odottamassa heitä auton luona.
Annikki mainitsi kuljettajalle osoitteen. He astuivat vaunuun —
Aava jälleen pidättyväisenä, epäluuloisena — ja auto lähti liikkeelle.
— No, Annikki, minne olemme matkalla? tiedusti Aava.
— Lehtori Luoman luo, oli odottamaton vastaus.
— Harmonikkahousun! Saaplari!
— Luoman luo? Mitä sieltä?
— Aion antaa siellä teille täydellisen selityksen päiväkirjan katoamisesta. Selityksen, jossa Olavilla ei ole mitään osaa.
— Hö-hö! Onpas siinä likkaa!
— Mitä hullua! Et kai ole järkeäsi menettänyt, Annikki? huudahti Aava harmistuneena. — Aiotko sekoittaa Luoman tuohon juttuun! Et kai epäile häntä päiväkirjan varkaaksi? Ei, tämä on jo liikaa! Minä puolestani en enää tahdo olla mukana tässä narrinpelissä! Palaan koululle!
— Koululle? hymähti Annikki. — Etkö nauti tästä nopeasta ajosta läpi yön?
— En! murahti puhuteltu. — Minua ei todellakaan haluta seurata sinua pitemmälle.
Annikilta pääsi helisevä nauru.
— Kenties voisin ymmärtää kaipuusi takaisin juhlaan, jos sinulta olisi jäänyt sinne ihastuttava tanssikumppani, ilvehti hän. — Mutta muistaakseni sanoit aikoessasi uhrautua minun kavaljeerikseni tanssivasi huonosti.
— Jätä tuo! harmistui Aava. — Hoi, siellä edessä, pysähdyttäkää auto!
— Etkö sitten tahdokaan olla mukana saamassa selvyyttä tähän juttuun, Antti? Minulla on ratkaisu kädessäni, kunhan te vain autatte minut lehtori Luoman luo.
— Mutta minua ei haluta olla mukana työntämässä syytä hänen niskoilleen, vastasi Aava. — Hän on vanha mies. Opettajani. Sitäpaitsi parastaikaa sairas.
— Hänen niskoilleen! ihmetteli Annikki. — Kuka tässä on sanonut, että minä syytän häntä päiväkirjan varkaaksi? Ratkaisu on se, jos sen tietää tahdot, ettei mitään varasta ole ollutkaan. Pieni, onneton erehdys vain.
— Eikö varasta? huudahtivat Aava ja Honka yhtaikaa.
— No, siinä tapauksessa en epäröi seurata sinua, taipui Aava. — Mutta vain yhdellä ehdolla. Tavattoman vieraskäyntimme selitykseksi kerrot sinä lehtori Luomalle ja meille — ilman mitään kysymyksiä sinun puoleltasi — miten arvelet jutun tapahtuneen.
— Onpa tuokin ehto, naurahti Annikki. — Sinä kai tahdot kokeilla naisten logiikalla. Oli miten oli, minä suostun.
Auto solui katukäytävän viereen pysähtyen viisikerroksisen kivimuurin eteen. He olivat perillä.
— Kas, Harmonikkahousu on vielä valveilla, sanoi Honka osoittaen valaistuja ikkunoita toisessa kerroksessa. — Taitaa ukko vain skraabata skolesta.
— Ehkä hän on ottanut oppia oppilaistaan, hymähti Annikki.
Ulko-ovi oli auki. Mutta kauan he saivat soittaa lehtori Luoman ovikelloa, ennenkuin vanhuksen verettömät, rasittuneet kasvot näyttäytyivät oviaukossa.
— Katsohan vain. Aava ja Honka. Käykää sisään, käykää sisään pojat, kehoitteli hän. Sitten hän huomasi Annikin. — Oh, teillä on nainenkin mukana. No, neitiseni saa suoda anteeksi huonon järjestyksen talossa. Tietäähän tällaisen vanhanpojan asunnon.
Annikki antoi ystävällisen vanhuksen saada tahtonsa perille ja salli hänen auttaa päällystakin hänen päältään.
— Kas vain, miten herttainen tyttö, sanoi lehtori lopettaen tarkastelunsa. — Hyvä hymy ja kauniit kasvot. Kai Aavan tuleva morsian?
— Valitettavasti ei, kiiruhti Aava selittämään, vaan Linnan.
— Vai Linnan? No, astukaa peremmäs. Vai Linnan? Kas vain sitä poikaa. Hyvä maku, hyvä maku.
Honka tuijotti ihmeissään opettajaansa. Vai tuollainen se Luoma pohjaltaan on, ajatteli hän. Saaplari, siitä kiusasta siellä koulussa oli
nyt lopultakin tuleva loppu. Kiva ukko! Nääs, miten pian hän ja Annikki tulivat tutuiksi. Nyt hän jo otti tyttöä hartioista kuin vanha setä ja kuljetti hänet pakisten työhuoneeseensa.
— Suokaa anteeksi, lehtori, että tulemme näin myöhään häiritsemään teitä, aloitti Aava, kun he sitten kaikki istuivat lehtorin työhuoneessa, keskellä täyteenahdettuja kirjahyllyjä ja lattialla kohoavia kirjapinkkoja.
— Myöhään? ihmetteli vanhus. — Onko nyt myöhä?
— Kello lähenee yhtätoista yöllä.
Yhtätoista! Sanoitko yhtätoista, poikani? Lehtori näytti avuttomalta. Sitten hän kääntyi anteeksipyytävästi hymyillen
Annikkiin: — Sellaista se on, kun tällainen iäkäs höperö syventyy vanhoihin kirjoihin. Unohtaa ajan. No, ja mitä varten te sitten olette näin myöhään liikkeellä?
— Tuon Linnan jutun tähden, vastasi Aava.
— Linnan? Jaha, sitä varten sinä, tyttöseni, olet siis matkassa. No, eihän Linnalle ole vain tapahtunut jotakin ikävää. En ole kuullut koulusta mitään pariin päivään. Olen ollut vähän sairas.
— Neiti Salo on luvannut selittää koko asian, sanoi Aava.
— Kyllä, myönsi Annikki. — Mutta toivon sinun, Antti, kertovan lehtorille jutun alkuvaiheet. Pyydän, että lehtori kuuntelisi keskeyttämättä. Olemme sopineet siitä, että senjälkeen minä selitän syyn, miksi olemme täällä, eli, miten olen ajatellut koko tämän sekavan vyyhdin syntyneen.
— Soo-o, myhähti vanhus. — Minä luulin teidän tulleen kysymään minulta jotakin, ja nyt onkin niin, että minun on vain kuunneltava valmista.
— Mutta myös päätettävä, olenko löytänyt oikean ratkaisun, lisäsi Annikki herttaisesti hymyillen.
— Jaha, alkakaahan nyt sitten, kehoitti lehtori asettuen mukavaan asentoon.
Aava kertoi lyhyesti päiväkirjan katoamisen, sen löytymisen revittynä ja Olavi Linnan erottamisen päiväkirjan varkaana. Lehtori Luoma liikahteli silloin tällöin rauhattomasti tuolillaan, ikäänkuin hän olisi tahtonut keskeyttää, mutta malttoi sitten mielensä.
— Ja nyt kun lehtori tietää tämän jutun yhtä tarkkaan kuin me, lopetti Aava, selittänee neiti Salo meille, mitä yhteyttä Linnan jutulla on lehtori Luoman kanssa. Minä puolestani en lainkaan ymmärrä tämän öisen vierailun tarkoitusta.
— Mitään ihmeellistä siinä ei kuitenkaan ole, alkoi Annikki. — Kun nyt ajattelen asiaa, kummastuttaa minua pikemminkin, että hetkenkään saatoin epäillä tätä mahdollisuutta. Kaikki riippuu siitä, että sekasotkussa, joka muodostaa tämän revityn päiväkirjan lehden salaisuuden, ei ole kysymys vain Olavin jälki-istunnosta, vaan toisestakin tarinasta, joka tässä hälinässä on jäänyt kokonaan Olavin jutun varjoon, mutta joka kuitenkin on ainoa tekijä päiväkirjan katoamisessa.
— Ja se toinen tarina? tiedusti Aava jännittyneenä.
— On lehtori Luoman niin sanottu puukkoseikkailu teidän luokallanne, vastasi Annikki. — Tehän tiedätte paremmin kuin minä, miten luokkanne ilkimykset aiheuttivat tuon päiväkirjan tahriutumisen. Kun muut opettajat eivät teillä yleensä yläluokilla enää muistiinpanoja päiväkirjaan tee, kävi lehtori Luoma viime torstai-iltana hakemassa luokkanne päiväkirjan kotiinsa koettaakseen jotenkuten parantaa asiaa. Niin hän sitten huomaamatta alasyrjässä olevaa lehtori Puutisen Olaville antamaa muistutusta repäisi rikkoutuneen lehden kokonaan irti ja…
— Mistä sen päätät? keskeytti Aava terävästi.
— Tästä, vastasi Annikki ojentaen hänelle rehtorinkanslian pöydältä löytämänsä paperilipun.
Aava luki liuskaleen pariin kertaan.
— Mitä tämä todistaa? kysyi hän sitten ihmetellen.
— Tämähän on vain lehtori Luoman ilmoitus rehtorille, ettei hän voi tulla kouluun.
— Mutta paperi! Etkö lainkaan huomaa paperia? huudahti Annikki.
— Lehtori Luoma kirjoitti eilen tuon ilmoituksen irtirepäisemänsä päiväkirjan lehden palaselle unohdettuaan jo koko päiväkirjan. Vasta tänä aamuna se sattui hänen käsiinsä, ja silloin lähetti hän siivoojattarensa tai jonkun muun tuomaan sitä paikoilleen voimatta lainkaan aavistaa, millaisen onnettomuuden tuo revitty lehti oli aikaansaava. Tuoja työnsi päiväkirjan sitten lähimpään pulpettiin, ja sattui niin, että se oli Olavin. Kas siinä koko juttu.
Kun Annikki lopetti, oli huoneessa hetken hiljaista. Molemmat nuorukaiset katsoivat jännittyneinä opettajaansa odottaen ratkaisevaa sanaa.
— Kiitos, tyttöseni, sanoi lehtori Luoma ystävällisesti. Hänen äänensä värisi. — Sinun silmäsi ovat sekä hyvät että tarkat. Sinä olet suurenmoisesti ratkaissut sen arvoituksen, jota kutsutte revityn päiväkirjan lehden salaisuudeksi. Olit kylläkin oikeassa sanoessasi, etten minä aavistanut, mitä kaikkea pahaa tulin aiheuttaneeksi.
Kauheinta on ajatella, että ellet sinä, tyttöseni, olisi päättäväisesti ryhtynyt selvittämään tätä vyyhtiä, olisi viaton saanut kantaa syyn. Minä olin ainoa, joka tiesin asian todellisen laidan, mutta on enemmän kuin luultavaa, etten milloinkaan olisi kuullut sanaakaan Linnan erottamisesta. Kukaan ei olisi kertonut siitä, ei heillä ole tapana tehdä selkoa minulle sellaisista asioista. Enkä minä olisi osannut kaivata häntä. Olen suorastaan kuohuksissa sen vääryyden takia, jota kunnon Linna on saanut kärsiä minun ajattelemattomuuteni vuoksi. Nyt vasta huomaan; miten vanhaksi olen tullut, vanhaksi ja höperöksi… Ei, älkää sanoko vastaan. Alkaa olla jo aika minun jättää paikkani nuoremmille… Mutta mitä minä tässä turhia jaarittelen? havahtui vanhus nousten pystyyn. — Linnan täytyy viipymättä saada hyvitystä. Onpa hyvä, että minulla on vielä kengät jalassa.
— Ei kai lehtori aio lähteä nyt yönselkään, sairaana? esteli Annikki.
‒ No, niin vanha en sentään vielä ole, etten kykenisi heti jalkeille korjaamaan erehdyksiäni, kun ne huomaan. Minä tulen sinun kanssasi, tyttöseni, Linnan luo. Pojat voivat mennä koululle kertomaan asiasta rehtorille.