Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of
 scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: IP Clearance - transferral or licensing of copyright ownership?
From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKTa1mjo6+YTqY8OJJBK6O4Lm=KfqpRamEHY1eFq7v4+WwQRGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:36:51 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E1CF296-6C0D-408E-96B7-7BC8ED70155C@gmail.com>
References: 
 <8D0249247DCD6F488B222D1F2FC5E6F8307526B74A@EXMBX02.ad.oak.ox.ac.uk>
 <CAKTa1mjo6+YTqY8OJJBK6O4Lm=KfqpRamEHY1eFq7v4+WwQRGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org


On 22 Sep 2011, at 11:20, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

> Hi Sander
>=20
> I'm glad you asked these questions here: asking well researched
> questions is the best way to improve our process and documentation
>=20
> but just for the record, the legal-discuss list[1] is the right place
> for projects to ask almost all questions about copyright (being
> public, it's not appropriate for some sensitive issues)
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Sander van der Waal
> <sander.vanderwaal@oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I'm trying to get my head around the IP clearance process and
>> specifically about what happens to the copyright ownership during =
that
>> process. Although IP clearance gets discussed once in a while on this
>> list I couldn't find a clear answer in the archives on this specific
>> point.
>=20
> In general Apache prefers to license with no change copyright =
ownership.
>=20
>> When a project with a pre-existing code base joins the incubator, =
does
>> the copyright of that code base get transferred to the ASF or will it =
be
>> licensed to the ASF?
>=20
> Almost always through a license
>=20
>> Reading through the IP clearance guide [1], it mentions the Software
>> Grant Agreement (SGA) and going to the text [2] it states that it is =
a
>> License Agreement to grant a license to the ASF. Also the CCLA [3] =
and
>> the ICLA [4] are license agreements. I interpret that to mean that =
the
>> copyright ownership remains with the licensor and only a license is
>> granted.
>=20
> That is my understanding
>=20
> IMHO an explicit explanation of these point would improve the
> documentation. It'd be great if someone contributed an improved
> version :-)
>=20
>> On the other hand, the ASF general FAQ states that the copyright of =
ASF
>> projects is owned by the ASF, more specifically "The members own the
>> code" [5].
>=20
> It is the collective copyright that is owned by Apache
>=20
> Projects are composed by a selection process undertaken by the PMC
> from a variety of contributions. Each contributor owns the copyright
> in their patch but the creative act of composition entitles Apache to
> claim collective copyright for the final work. This collective
> copyright claim is noted in the NOTICE. The header for each document
> should acknowledge that Apache has licensed (from the original
> contributions) the rights required to offer the document to the public
> under the Apache License, Version 2 but almost always will not contain
> a copyright claim.
>=20
> If the documentation is missing this explanation then it'd be great if
> someone contributed an improved version :-)


This is a really good explanation - thanks Robert!  I'd been wondering =
the same thing as Sander.

>=20
>> Also the IP Clearance template [6] has a check that says
>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received." But it seems that the SGA and *CLAs are just license
>> agreements and don't include a transferral of rights? I must be =
missing
>> something obvious here but I'm not sure what.
>=20
> Copyright licenses grants the licensee rights otherwise restricted by
> copyright law. "Transfer" might be taken to mean "exclusive" so
> "assign" would be a better choice.
>=20
> But this could be phrased more more clearly and explained explicitly.
> It'd be great if someone contributed an improved version :-)
>=20
>> Going through a few NOTICE files of projects doesn't really make it
>> clearer, because some only specify the ASF as copyright owner and =
others
>> specify in general terms that it "includes software [originally]
>> developed at X".
>=20
> The standard NOTICE should include note both the collective copyright
> and that Apache developed the software
>=20
>> I know copyright ownership might not be a big deal to many here, but =
we
>> are dealing with many open source projects where the project lead has
>> a very strong sense of ownership over the code. Besides educating =
them
>> about the issues I want to make sure I get the facts right.
>=20
> Thanks for taking the time to frame good questions :-)
>=20
> The documentation here in the Incubator is developed by the community
> for the community. The best podlings change the Incubator more than
> the Incubation process changes them. Karma is earned here at Apache
> through contribution.
>=20
> The documentation needs improvement in this area. I'd be glad to
> review patches and work with anyone would could find some cycles to
> contribute. Anyone want to start by diving in with suggestions?
>=20
> Robert
>=20
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>=20


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