Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of m.v.lunteren@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5035133E.5000108@oracle.com>
References: <50350B76.7060307@sbcglobal.net>
	<5035133E.5000108@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:36:50 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADjEm_X+niiGwBtuWUof12RKL_6eDxLtZPSAH_bsFX-SxYLf1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: No more license check box after Friday
From: Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunteren@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Rick Hillegas
<rick.hillegas@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/12 9:40 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
>>
>> I received a notice that as part of the Friday Jira "upgrade"  we will be
>> using the Apache license plugin. I am not sure why, but  I guess that means
>> that we  should be extra careful to get an ICLA or explicit  license in a
>> Jira comment for every patch, even very simple ones.
>>
>> Kathey
>
> Hi Kathey,
>
> It looks like we all missed the discussion of this change. A clarifying
> discussion is now happening on the infrastructure mailing list under the
> subject "Upcoming JIRA Upgrade". Here's what Doug Cutting has just said:
>
> "Contributions to Apache-licensed software are under the terms of the
> license by default:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#contributions
>
> The only purpose of the checkbox was to permit folks to attach things
> that were *not* intended to be contributions.  The same thing can be
> accomplished without the checkbox by stating in a comment that the
> attachment is not intended for contribution."
>
> Here is the passage from the Apache license cited by Doug:
>
> "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."
>
> I tend to agree with Doug. We should assume that all contributions are
> licensed to Apache unless the contributor explicitly says otherwise. I don't
> see the need for requiring an explicit grant in every attachment comment.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
Thanks Kathey, Rick,

I didn't realize that clause was in the license...
I agree we only need to add a comment if something is *not* intended
for contribution.
We just need to continue vigilance with contributions by folks without ICLAs.

Myrna