Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACsi252Ub8oJYVjPjGWGwotkD4H1gq6H5dC52_Za0at+MNLLPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+ULb+t=QQWDsKA2nc-mc+nZ0Abkp0cpctdVrapoYWx=0vh0Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<A0B2A9C7-BCA2-403E-B708-064DB29827CE@jaguNET.com>
	<CACsi2538kYVcWBk=cp0XGyoY=tHjf0RUc8Zf2_Qo3uW_+AC5cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1FBC02D.38A44%aharui@adobe.com>
	<CACsi252Ub8oJYVjPjGWGwotkD4H1gq6H5dC52_Za0at+MNLLPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:42:15 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CACsi253A9NEXJuhqsw7z+1y9M_FeLLizYkNcmRR4YRkn_1h_1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF?
From: William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eceaca1c411051dc86096

--001a113eceaca1c411051dc86096
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >
> > >It is generally AL code all the time.  I don't know where you invented
a
> > >'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
> > >ICLA/CCLA,
> > >nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
> > Committers sometimes make mistakes.  IIRC, Justin recently caught a
> > mistake where some files accidentally got their non-AL headers replaced
> > with AL headers.
> >
> > Large codebase contributions, especially initial podling code grants
might
> > be messy as well until scrubbed and approved for an official ASF
release.
> > I know from experience.
>
> We don't disagree on this point.  Sometimes, they are caught through the
release process, or by peer review.  Other times, we must retract the claim
we offered.
>
> Nothing changes the fact that code is either offered under the AL 2.0 or
another license, unless the author/licensor changes their license
retroactively.

Your comment also hones in on the logical fallacy our VP fell into... While
it may be true that the ASF granted its own AL 2.0 license to the release
package, the ASF is unable to change component licenses in incompatible
ways.  And the warranty the ASF offers on an inaccurate license claims is -
nil - c.f. AL 2.0

However, if our repositories are under another license, that VP needs to
make public this information, because I never got the memo, and I must
notify friends and the many companies I advise and consult to that they all
need to cease looking at the ASF's repositories, and let their respective
legal departments each sort this all out, if those repositories are
licensed with terms and conditions differing from the AL 2.0.

--001a113eceaca1c411051dc86096--