community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roya Abdi <>
Subject RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
Date Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:45:16 GMT
در تاریخ ۲۱ اوت ۲۰۱۵ ۲۳:۰۷، "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>

> [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.
> 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.
> Techno-legal nit? #3:
>     From <>:
>     "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
> 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 <
> 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.)
> (Le sigh)
>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler []
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 09:14
> To:; ComDev <>
> Subject: RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
> [ ... ]
> Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That
> combined work is only licensed as  such when the foundation formally
> approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best
> of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms
> with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both
> ours and upstream).
> Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These
> are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of
> contribution. [ ... ]

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message