incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Contributions policy for those with no ICLA
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:42:08 GMT
On 16 February 2012 12:35, Patrick Mueller <> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:25, Jukka Zitting <>wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ross Gardler <>
>> wrote:
>> > [ASIDE many people in the ASF argue that the contribution under the
>> > Apache License is sufficient, this is not the forum for this
>> > discussion, current policy is that an ICLA is required - the forum to
>> > seek policy change is legal-discuss@a.o]
>> Citation needed.
> Ross also referenced, but did not cite "one mail back in December indicated
> that significant IP would be involved".  Please supply a link to the email
> in the mail archives, assuming it was on one of our lists (that seemed to
> be implied).

"I assume the RIM folks intend on contributing significant IP they own to
Apache (ie, code they have written)."

However, as noted in my mails and corrected by Jukka, if these
contributions are coming through git pull requests it's not an issue.

There was another situation in which contributions from would be gated
through a single individual. In this case the legal situation is hazy
at best, the social implications I discussed in my mail are relevant
(Jukka pointed this out at the time).

>> The current policy as described in [1] explicitly does *not* require
>> an ICLA for all contributions. ...
> So, count me as confused by Ross's note, as my understanding of the
> situation is the same as Jukka's.

I withdraw the "significant IP" part. Jukka is correct.

I remain concerned about the possibility of circumventing the
contribution process - but recognise this is only a possibility at
this stage based on incomplete information. Hence my original mail
contained "If nobody is contributing code that is not coming in
through an active contribution process there is nothing to worry about
and I'm just blowing hot air."

> I'm happy to see that there are different opinions here, since the whole
> 3rd party code usage thing is ... confusing.

Welcome to Apache, where even the mentors get it wrong in public ;-)

The reason for this is incomplete documentation (even contradictory
documentation) and different practices in different projects.

> If me and Jukka are wrong, and Ross is right, then I've broken the rules by
> including a slew of npm modules, and the WebKit Web Inspector source, in
> weinre's git repo at Apache.  The top-level LICENSE file for weinre <1>
> (master branch) lists all the 3rd party code that weinre pulls
> (recursively).

If the code is under a compatible licence and you have taken any steps
necessary to identify their use (NOTICE file) this is nothing to worry
about. The issue I raise is only for code contributed to the ASF (i.e.
carries a Copyright ASF notice).

I've not looked at this specific case yet, but will do so if you want
me to review it (I'll certainly review it before release).


View raw message