couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <>
Subject Re: Uneasiness with use of github for experimentation
Date Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:04:06 GMT
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Curt Arnold<> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
>> A few shapeless and incomplete thoughts leap to mind:
>>> As previously mentioned, the JIRA does have an checkbox to indicate that
>>> a
>>> contribution is intended as a contribution.  That is intended as a
>>> reinforcement (or an explicit refutation) of the implied license for
>>> things
>>> posted on the mailing lists or in Bugzilla (which lacks the checkbox).
>>>  The
>>> implied license for contributions comes from item 5 in the ASL.
>>>  5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
>>>     any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
>>>     by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
>>>     this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
>>>     Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
>>>     the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
>>>     with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
>> As I read this, anyone that submits a patch to me on github has
>> granted ASF license to that contribution unless they specifically
>> state that their contribution was not intended for inclusion. Its
>> still my ass on the line as a committer if I put something in SVN that
>> violates this agreement. The radio button on JIRA is not an absolute
>> requirement for inclusion.
> They have granted you (the Licensor in the case of a project fork which work
> on github looks like)

I fail to see how having code on Github is any more of a fork than my
local checkout of the SVN repository.

> a license to use the code under the ASL.  That would
> give you the rights to relicense it to the ASF.  However, the ASF loses the
> record of the initial contribution.  The ASF would be unlikely be covered if
> there was a problem since the ASF relied on your assertion that it was your
> original work, however you would be on the line and the project and users
> could suffer.

The rest is roughly my point. The ASF requires that I act
appropriately when committing code. The only issue here is that if I
accept a patch on Github then the ASF has no log of the original
author's contribution. This applies to wherever I receive code
contributions though.

So if we want to address the underlying issue of providence and
logging submissions perhaps we should consider how that could be

Paul Davis

View raw message