community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:05:46 GMT
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> [Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion on two lists,
> so I am doing it too.  Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration, but it has to do with
the
> fact that "release" is not so well distinguished as one might hope.]
>
> Minor nit? #1:
>
> Generally, because of what is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and
> NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in
> the repository.  A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important ceremonial
> distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache Release.

I was thinking exactly that while reading the thread. Now, to be fair,
most of the
time statements made by both of these are correct. I actually haven't seen that
much licensing issues with TLP during release cycles.

> Not-so-minor nit? #2:
>
>     "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)
>     under one or more contributor license agreements.
>     See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work
>     for additional information regarding copyright
>     ownership.  The ASF licenses this file to you under
>     the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at
>     the very top of many individual files in typical ASF
>     Project repositories.

Yup. That goes back to the clarification I've just requested
from Ross. 'cuz I agree -- I can see it being interpreted
in more than one way.

> Techno-legal nit? #3:
>
>     From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>:
>
>     "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients
>     of software **distributed** by the Foundation 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 Your Contributions and such
>     derivative works."
>
>  ** emphasis mine in both places

Great point. I haven't connected the dots with ICLAs myself,
but it totally makes sense to talk about ICLA since it is the
document that governs the ingest point of new contributions.

> Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4
>
> A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of mine might
be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," non-distribution, and "released" I
made a supplemental declaration.  I provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on
2013-03-08.
>
> This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future ASF **contribution**
of mine effectively the same copyright license granted under the iCLA without the condition
that it be distributed by the Foundation.  You can see it in all of its glory at <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>.
 This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of those parties the
same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA (technically not an ALv2 license either).
>
> I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to LibreOffice.
 I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL license declaration they tend to
request. (The receipt of that declaration has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.)

Interesting! Thanks for the pointer.

Thanks,
Roman.

Mime
View raw message