deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IP discussion
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:46:16 GMT
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Marek Schmidt <maschmid@redhat.com> 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
>> <marius.bogoevici@gmail.com>  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
>>>>> <antoine@sabot-durand.net>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what about individuals like me ? Or about IP of code coming from
other
>>>>>> 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 be
>>>>> covered under that CLA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second sentence above is why a simple handshake agreement from Red
>>>>> Hat is enough for me--their corporate CLA is already on file.  I lost
>>>>> 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, yes,
>>>>> 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 need
>>>> to ask an authorization. So the original license has no value. Unless Apache
>>>> needs that Springsource ASL2 licensing has to be violated by removing names
>>>> of original authors, in this case I understand the need of authorization
but
>>>> I'm still puzzled that Apache don't recognize ASL2 value or needs to bypass
>>>> 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
we
>>>>>>> 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 was
>>>>>>> involved in preparing the incubator proposal. But Shane and Jason
for sure
>>>>>>> know whom to ping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Shane Bryzak<sbryzak@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: gudnabrsam@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> <lightguard.jp@gmail.com>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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

Mime
View raw message