harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Date Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:05:11 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>>> , that that can
>>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a 
>>>>> say in
>>>>> it.
>>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at 
>>>> a minimum
>>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and 
>>>> then apache
>>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache 
>>>> license, and
>>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it 
>>> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of 
>>> a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>> No.
> I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a license 
>  from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee, so I would 
> guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a say on what 
> a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.

no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you 
can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under 
different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a 
OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.

> I dunno.  I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)

The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going 
wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.

Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage 
dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.

If not, hell, it would be a perpetual lock-in situation.

So, in short:

  1) the ASF is not asking for copyright transfer, so "submarine 
copyright holders" are all over the place (I'm one too, I own code in so 
many java projects I can't even count them, and I wasn't working for 
anybody so that is definitely my code).

  2) not having ownership simplifies donations and guarantees the 
ability for the author to do whatever he/she pleases with the code even 
after it was donated.

  3) not having ownership does not effect the ability for the ASF to 
create successful and perpetual open development efforts around such 
code. The owner cannot stop the ASF from continuing the effort unless it 
violates the contract that was signed with the CLA. Given the broad 
spectrum of rights that the CLA gives to the ASF.

  4) copyright statements and giving credits are two different things 
and I think it's wise to keep them separate.

  5) the ASF considers it a moral obligation to give credit when due, 
not a contractual one. In 10 years, Etienne is the only one who had a 
problem with this. It is reasonable for him to ask for such an 
obligation to be contractual and not just moral, yet it is also 
reasonable (and predictable) for some ASF members to feel insulted by 
such a request.


View raw message