deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <>
Subject Re: IP discussion
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:00:39 GMT
Hi all--we have worked through the issues with regard to Red Hat's
contributions to DeltaSpike.  Suffice it to say that regardless of
*copyright* ownership, Red Hat unquestionably has the authority to
*license* the relevant IP, and does so freely under its CCLA.  The
details of the dialogue with Red Hat are available on
deltaspike-private for those with access.

Thanks and happy coding,

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Matt Benson <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Marek Schmidt <> wrote:
>> On 16/01/12 02:17, Matt Benson wrote:
>>> (sent once to Marius accidentally dropping the list)
>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Marius Bogoevici
>>> <>  wrote:
>>>> On 2012-01-15, at 1:02 PM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand
>>>>>> <>  wrote:
>>>>>>> what about individuals like me ? Or about IP of code coming from
>>>>>>> project ? In Seam social, I get lots of services API binding
from Spring
>>>>>>> Social (an ASL2 license project). I there any issue about that
>>>>>> All code must be expressly licensed by its rightful owner to be
>>>>>> included in the ASF repo.  For code you write yourself, you simply
>>>>>> license it under your filed ICLA.  Anything else needs a software
>>>>>> grant OR a CLA of some sort and the intent that the contribution
>>>>>> covered under that CLA.
>>>>>> The second sentence above is why a simple handshake agreement from
>>>>>> Hat is enough for me--their corporate CLA is already on file.  I
>>>>>> sight of that fact momentarily when I sent my last message on this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>> But back to the idea of code that comes, e.g., from SpringSource,
>>>>>> we must obtain express license to the code itself, particularly when
>>>>>> it would take the form of an entire class.   Depending on a
>>>>>> compatibly-licensed third-party binary is of course no problem
>>>>>> whatever.
>>>>> Sorry, but I'm really puzzled about this IP issue. My understanding is
>>>>> that ASL2 is useless.
>>>>> Springsource put their code under ASL2, I used some of their code in
>>>>> respect of the license (keeping names of original authors) but I still
>>>>> to ask an authorization. So the original license has no value. Unless
>>>>> needs that Springsource ASL2 licensing has to be violated by removing
>>>>> of original authors, in this case I understand the need of authorization
>>>>> I'm still puzzled that Apache don't recognize ASL2 value or needs to
>>>>> it to use code under its own license.
>>>>> Could you get me out this kafka-ish point of view :-) ?
>>>> Yeah, I could benefit from some clarification here as well. Reading
>>>> Matt's response I understand that this is not an ASL2 issue, but rather an
>>>> ASF policy issue (ASL2 would require listing Spring social original authors,
>>>> but that cannot be done without their express permission). Or?
>>> That is my understanding, yes; ASF projects don't use code from
>>> anyplace unless its author expressly wants the code used in the form
>>> in which we wish to use it.  It's easy enough to see that the mere
>>> fact that a simple piece of code is under ASL2 could be construed as
>>> "enough," but again that's not my understanding of the "Apache
>>> spirit," if you will.  I will spend some more research on this
>>> tomorrow in case I (or anyone else) can demonstrate through ASF
>>> precedent that I'm being overly paranoid.
>>> Thanks all,
>>> Matt
>> um, and what about the CLA article 7?
>> 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation,
>>   You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any
>>   Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of
>>   any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to,
>>   related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you
>>   are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as
>>   "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]".
> Good catch.  I had quite forgotten about this clause.  Honestly, I've
> never seen this actually done; rather I've heard endless times that
> Apache committers should *not* submit contributions on another party's
> behalf but that those contributions should come through well-defined
> channels, usually issue trackers and/or mailing lists.  This would be
> another policy question to bring to the incubator general mailiing
> list.  In any event, "on behalf of a third party" still implies that
> third party's complicity.
> Matt
>>>>>> Thanks all for the constructive discussion,
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> Antoine SABOT-DURAND
>>>>>>> Le 15 janv. 2012 à 16:59, Mark Struberg a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>> Thanks Matt for bringing this up! This is definitely something
>>>>>>>> must do before thinking about a -incubating-0.1 release.
>>>>>>>> Btw, I'll now rename the version to reflect the incubation
status .
>>>>>>>> Mark Little from JBoss was the manager at RedHat/JBoss who
>>>>>>>> involved in preparing the incubator proposal. But Shane and
Jason for sure
>>>>>>>> know whom to ping.
>>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: Shane Bryzak<>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 2:28 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: IP discussion
>>>>>>>>> We'd need to follow this up with Red Hat legal, to confirm
what we
>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Jason Porter
>>>>>>>>> <>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Would someone like myself or Shane work or do we
need someone
>>>>>>>>>> higher up in
>>>>>>>>>> the organization or a lawyer to sign off on it?

View raw message