incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Access to wiki
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:57:39 GMT
On 7 August 2011 21:37, Eike Rathke <ooo@erack.de> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Sunday, 2011-08-07 21:26:29 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 7 August 2011 16:55, Eike Rathke <ooo@erack.de> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 2011-08-07 11:27:26 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> 1) How do we ensure that contributions are made in a way that is
>> >> consistent with the rights we need to even host the contributed
>> >> content.
>> >
>> > Ensure that contributions are made under a proper license by having
>> > a statement at a prominent place when editing a page. Have a bot running
>> > that searches for terms like license and copyright and such and review
>> > those pages, reject/undo edits if necessary.
>>
>> The ASF is extremely averse with respect to IP management. That's why
>> companies of all shapes and sizes are comfortable using Apache project
>> outputs. I'm not part of the legal team. If the community wants to
>> move towards this kind of model it will need to be run past the legal
>> team. As I understand it this is not currently accepted practice (but
>> I may be wrong and if Sam is reading he will correct me).
>
> My proposal was due to my understanding that wiki edits should be under
> a license (Apache or any of category A permissive) that would allow to
> include any contribution in the "official" release documentation that
> must be under AL2 or compatible.
>
> Am I wrong on this?

You are right about this. However, for contributions containing
significant IP the ASF requires an iCLA. It's a proactive statement
that the individual has the right to contribute that IP this makes it
possible for the ASF to defend that contributor and all downstream
users in the event of a dispute.

Some would argue that requiring contributions to be under an
appropriate license is enough. However, the ASF wants the additional
protection of the iCLA.

As I said earlier in this thread, the question is about when there is
"significant IP" and thus when is an iCLA required.

My advise is to treat it like you would code patches. Edits to the
wiki are the equivalent of patches. When a committer moves this over
to official documentation they make a judgement call on whether an
iCLA is required (in the majority of cases it won't be, but imagine a
significant portion of a book chapter as a case where it will be -
does the author or the publisher own the copyright?)

I suggest refining your proposal and then asking the legal team to
approve/adapt it.

Ross

Mime
View raw message