commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Date Thu, 24 Oct 2002 22:25:59 GMT
At 17:34 24.10.2002 -0400, you wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
> > Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> > has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> > bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
>Except the sandbox is published online in a view-cvs. Does this constitute
>a legal publication of code? Does it need to be sufficiently licensed?

I don't think view-cvs matters because the code is also accessible
through anon-cvs. The real question is whether we are violating any IP
laws. For example, if committer xyz places code belonging to some big
corporation without permission, that corporation can sue Apache. The
fact that the code is publicly available through Apache makes it
obviously worse. The sandbox could be warez if no one ever checked,
actually that is true for all Apache projects, not just the sandbox.

If you think of it, the release restriction of the sandbox does not
really protect the ASF in case of litigation.

There are many ways of violating IP law. The ASF makes every effort in
ensuring that it complies with existing laws. It trusts contributors
to only submit code to which they are legally entitled. The
contributor agreement plays an important role in this. It is attached
for your reference. AFAIK, all committers are required to send it to
the ASF secretary at the time their commit access was granted.

>Is it okay for it to be unlicensed just as long as it's not licensed or
>copyrighted to someone other than Apache?
>Should the ViewCvs contain some kind of note saying that all code is
>copyright Apache unless otherwise stated?

That would not be legal. If it were, we could for example put Windows
XP in CVS and declare that it is ours to distribute free of charge.

>I'd like to make a statement that isn't a question, but can't think of
>anything :)

Unanswered questions seem to be an inherent part of IP law.



TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793

View raw message