directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject RE: [eve] Event Manager
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2003 03:57:00 GMT

It is most preferable to have CLAs or software grants from everyone who
has touched code we are importing into CVS, there is no doubt
about that.

It is not absolutely mandatory, however, so long as the pre-existing
license on that code grants the necessary rights for a CLA-signing ASF
commiter to commit that codebase to CVS.

A clear example is Henry Spencer's regex package in the apache-1.3 tree.
Henry himself has not signed a CLA nor a software grant.  However, here is
his copyright:*checkout*/apache-1.3/src/regex/COPYRIGHT?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

Note that one can follow all the requirements of their Apache CLA, and the
terms of Henry's copyright, at the same time, there is no conflict.

This is also why the CLA is not a copyright *assignment*, but simply a
grant of rights.  Alexei Kosut, who checked in Spencer's regex package
back in 1995, did not have the right to assign "clear title" to the code
to the ASF, and he didn't need to.  Yet, the ASF still can do everything
it needs to do to Henry's package, namely modify and redistribute under
terms of our choosing following the terms of Henry's copyright.

Henry's BSD-without-attribution is an easy example; the next easiest to
look at would be another Apache-licensed product.  Let's assume the author
did the right thing and correctly labeled themselves in the license,
rather than claiming that it was the Apache Software Foundation that was
the copyright holder.  It appears that we could incorporate such code
without problems, paying attention to any special terms we couldn't use in
the name of the derivative work (just like derivative works can't call
themselves Apache) and giving credit where credit is due.  If the authors
of this non-Apache code didn't replace our names with theirs... then it's
their loss, not ours.

Therefore: if the license on d-haven really is either the Apache License
or a name-replaced equivalent, it is not mandatory to get CLAs from every
contributor.  It is *preferred* that we get those, so as to provide a
second layer of defense should anyone make noise about it.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be a final authority on this, but
this is the the understanding of law under which I would proceed.


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Then we'll start borrowing from []
> The license is the Apache Software License, and Berin Loritsch is the
> project manager, but not all of the contributors are Apache Committers,
> meaning that they don't have CLAs on file with the Foundation.
> That makes at least three Avalon-related projects on SourceForge using the
> ASL.  Nicola Ken has expressed concern that without a CLA and/or software
> grant, we can't assume that we have clear title to use the code.  Due to the
> SCO lawsuit, people are especially sensitive to making sure that title is
> documented and clean.
> I am cc'ing licensing@, and hopefully we can get some guidance.
> 	--- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message