incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: clarification on SF license and sandboxes
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:15:42 GMT
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments that
> > > > are not intended for inclusion?
> > > >
> > > > I can see one very reasonable reason from a user point of view - the
> > > > example they want to upload is business related and so they want to do
> > > > their best to explain the problem to us, but not to have us publish
> > > > those details any further. However that reason doesn't hold up as it's
> > > > public if it's in our JIRA and if we don't know the license on it,
> > > > then can we even use it to resolve the issue?
> > > >
> > > > What makes an attachment special? Why don't we have to do this for
> > > > comments and the jira issue itself?
> > > >
> > > > Not seeing why we don't just say:  "All issues + attachments are
> > > > intended for inclusion".
> > >
> > > There's a difference between "I don't want to contribute this code to
> > > the project code base" versus "I don't want my code published."
> > >
> > > The "no" option means the code is not for inclusion into the project.
> > > It doesn't necessarily mean that the code is confidential.
> >
> > What does 'not for inclusion' mean though?
> >
> > If it's marked that way, can I take bits of the code out of it? Do I
> > have to worry about looking at that code and then implementing
> > something in the apache code that does the same thing and getting
> > sued?
> >
> > For example, what if someone posts a bit of Sun's Java source to the
> > Harmony JIRA and marks it 'not for inclusion'. There's a world of
> > meaning in that not for inclusion flag. What's in it for the ASF to
> > have a not for inclusion option?
> >
> > I'm not seeing why we allow it - better to say "Anything here is for
> > inclusion".
>
> As you mentioned before, it's typically used to post example code
> demonstrating a bug.    As a project committer, what's in it for me is
> that I can use the submitted code to identify and fix the bug.   The
> code doesn't have to be apache licensed for me to do that (ASF
> licensing isn't viral).   There's still benefit to the project simply
> in identifying and fixing bugs even without a code grant to the ASF.

How do you know you can use the code to identify and fix the bug?

And more confusingly - how do you write a unit test for that bug
without taking too much copyright from the example code?

Legal-wise (and my understanding of this stuff is always iffy) - I
thought that if something wasn't licensed/publically announced in the
public domain, that it was 'All Rights Reserved'. So anything that
doesn't check the 'code-grant' checkbox seems completely unusable.

>From a more ASF-selfish point of view - what are we losing if we don't
allow people to put stuff in without granting us the right to use
that? Are we going to see lots of people not attaching patches/test
code?

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message