I have edited to remove e-mail and IP addresses, but have otherwise left everything intact, including the CC line:

From:    "Len Newman"   
Date:    Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:12:21 -0500
To:    Tim Rushing
CC:    "Bruce Perens", Daniel Eggers
Subject:    Re: Grokline discussion online

Hi Tim,

Two days ago I was in Brussels and today I'm in Delaware. It's been difficult
to find time.

I'm including Bruce and Daniel on the cc because I want them to know that I
will not cc them in future. If they express a desire otherwise, then of course.
Further, you've made them aware of your blog and I know they will weigh in if
interested. By the way, I appreciate the care you took to preserve the privacy
of the correspondents and I don't mind at all your republishing our
correspondence anywhere you feel there is interest. I am unlikely to address
on your blog the issues that I already address on grokline, which is itself a
public forum, but I appreciate the invitation. You can email me at anytime.

In an earlier email you stated as follows:
> Thanks for taking all the time with me, Len.
>
> A few final questions and I'll leave you alone.  I'm assuming from your
> comments that you are going to hold the copyright on the work product that
> results from all of this.  You have indicated that it is released under the
> CCL attribution, non-commercial license and that licensing would preclude
> anyone including OSRM from exploiting it commercially.
>
> Can OSRM claim copyright on your work product as a work for hire, or is it
> clear in the contract language that you retain full copyright?
>
> Even if you retain full copyright, as the copyright holder, nothing in the
> CCL license you have chosen would preclude you from relicensing on different
> terms to others.  Is there any chance of getting a FAQ entry saying either
> that you will not re-license except under the CCL or that if you re-license,
> you will make the work product available to any and all comers on the same
> terms?

You seem to have a pretty good awareness of the implications of copyright law
in the US, including notions associated with terms like "work for
hire" and
"dual licensing." I presume you owe this knowledge to participation in
groklaw
and I hope you appreciate the value of this learning, as it can be very
relevant in your work, which I presume is programming or related to
programming.

Copyright law is not perfect, even in the US ;-)

We have made some choices about the ownership and licenses that presumably will
apply to this project, trying to select the best-fitting choices under
copyright law to the actual intent of our effort. Law, off the shelf and
ready-to-wear, does not always fit free software and open-source projects.
Hence the world-renown for RMS's brilliant "copyleft" hack.

What we have are clear intentions to enable the following:
open-source methodology
community ownership
build on Eric Levenez's timeline

Implicit in these terms are the idea that we will stand on the shoulders of
others and, we hope, build something collaboratively that others can stand on in
future.

In building on Eric Levenez's timeline, we are committed to the CC License with
non-commercial use. This license is appropriate, as I think you already
acknowledge, for the work as a whole.

The owner of the copyright in the work as a whole must be in a position to
enforce the terms of the license. How to achieve "community ownership"
and yet
meet the copyright law requirements of ownership for purposes of enforcement,
etc., has led us to the position that OSRM is the best candidate for holding
the copyright for now. You can think of me as working for hire, if you like.
There may be other moderators or staff on the project and it will be true for
them as well. The advantage of this arrangement is that copyrights will be held
in the hands of a legally established corporate entity with standing and
resources adequate to ensure the rights of the community whether in a court of
law or another venue. Copyrights will not be held in my hands alone, and will
not be in a state of confusion as the project matures and devolves into the
hands of other moderators or editors.

One special advantage of this arrangement is the clarity of transfer of
copyrights that will be possible when the project is transferred to a nonprofit
entity. It was my choice to vest copyrights with OSRM until that day, among
other reasons to make the transition legally cleaner to the next owner, if
there is to be one. I am grateful to them for shouldering this responsibility.

In the meanwhile, I am proud to be associated with OSRM. Some members of the
community have criticized OSRM for their eye-opening revelations about the
actual number of patents that might infringe the kernel. My personal opinion is
that this analysis is necessary to any realistical effort to solve the problem
of patents. I am proud that this opinion is shared by several individuals whom
I respect, including RMS, Bruce Perens and Dan Ravicher.

In this project, OSRM is willing to abjure any commercial use, putting it on the
same footing as every other community member. They have good business reasons
for this decision, such as Public Relations and the long term health of FOSS.
This is not the first time that a commercial enterprise has made a significant
and even costly contribution to the growth of FOSS.

My motivation and yours and that of OSRM seem to me really very similar at
heart. Please be constructive. Look for the common ground. Be aware of the
differences, if you must, but please act on the commonalities wherever you
can.

Whether any part of our dialogue belongs in the FAQs is a question I will
consider. In the meantime, please feel free to republish to the extent you
wish.

Len

 which will not have commercial exploitation

Quoting Tim Rushing: