incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Making a non ASF project, ASF friendly
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:26:48 GMT
On 1/6/07, J Aaron Farr <farra@apache.org> wrote:
> On 1/7/07, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't agree. Any AL2 licensed work can be included in an ASF
> > distribution, as a dependency. In terms of committing a piece of work
> > that is not under our IP (and is not covered by a CLA), the Apache
> > license doesn't make it a given. You would still need to submit a
> > grant or be covered by a CLA, and you would have to be responsible for
> > the IP of the work. (I think... :) ).
>
> From a purely licensing point of view (independent of the ASF) you can
> take two AL2 works and combine them and get an AL2 licensable work as
> a result without having to get anyone's permission.  We may not always
> do this in the ASF but that's a result of policy not licensing.

Yup.

> If something is small enough to submit via JIRA and it's already AL2,
> then I don't think it would be a problem.  Our JIRA process already
> covers this anyway.

Yup. Though you have to be the owner of that something small. If
someone submits something to a project I have, I can't then submit
that to the ASF JIRA. It's not mine.

> As a pure dependency, it's also not an issue.  Our third-party
> licensing guidelines make this clear.

Yep.

> So is the only situation that I see as tricky is taking say a handful
> of source code from sf.net and dropping it directly into the main
> trunk of an ASF project.  This would be a fork but it wouldn't create
> a licensing issue as long as the code were clearly identified and any
> attached copyright statements maintained.

Yep. I was asking about this on IRC a while back - why do we have
software grants for something that is AL 2.0 licensed (especially
given that the software grant is a subset of the AL 2.0 license).

The answer was that:

a) Means we don't have to put it in the NOTICE (minor).
b) Means we don't have to treat the source code differently than our
source code (middling).
c) Means we can choose to change the licensing of it later on (major).

> I can understand some could feel uneasy about the forked result, but
> the only legal concern I can detect would be if someone doubted
> whether the original sf.net work had been properly put under the AL2
> in the first place.  If the original work were encumbered in some way,
> then that could put the ASF fork in a bind.  So in the end it's a
> question of if we trust the original work is what it says it is -- a
> legally licensed AL2 work.

The biggest concern is that the thing we bring into our repository is
a lesser citizen than the normal parts of our repository. We have to
treat it differently - as a fork of a project and not as one of our
projects.

Least that's my understanding.

Hen

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


Mime
View raw message