Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
  b=XgJ6ITtgHahirQHCqk6SMSgi5TnyyZdHtApAoyErN1cSjoUxkpP70dslvuMVo6nID7H+4t67ruWkld6LGygHFAf4fFN8Hhk1kHQL5jbycJjP4COF7tVqgP6p+0A6OzO8nO8ptziTzhyEVxeZxGgnNNb82iIrqtq17E/pRzARbzs=;
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wade Chandler <hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: hwadechandler-apache@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
To: jcp-open@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <AB92F53F-84FB-4401-B1BF-FCE60F3B8F79@pobox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <933545.56688.qm@web33807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> > Anyways, others have actually taken Sun projects and sold them  
> > commercially. There are groups
> > selling OpenOffice as a differently named packaged software product  
> > along with other softwares
> > and their value adds. Others do this with NetBeans as well. With  
> > NetBeans one can take the full
> > IDE if they want to, call it something else, add a couple other  
> > modules to it, and sell their own
> > branded IDE for money with added terms and an overall different  
> > license with the core obviously
> > being covered by the GPL w/ClassPath Extensions and CDDL.
> 
> Really?  try shipping a derivative work under a closed source license.
>

Do it all the time. Now, of course, one has to include the ability for one to find the sources of
the base projects etc, but modules built atop, this is not the case.
 
> >
> >
> > You may be referring to something else though, but the Sun projects  
> > code released under one
> > license can't be changed on the given release, so I don't really see  
> > a real difference in others
> > selling and licensing a product commercially or not. It seems much  
> > like what Linux distros do.
> > Someone has to pay the devs and they all have to eat :-D.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits
> >>> something, but with the way legal
> >>> systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it
> >>> can certainly feel necessary
> >>> to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an
> >>> understanding. Anyways, the
> >>> SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your
> >>> code in someone else's
> >>> project.
> >>
> >> No, that's not true.  At the ASF, we don't get "joint copyright"
> >> assignment when code is placed in our projects.  The copyright  
> >> remains
> >> distributed among those that contributed it, and the project  
> >> asserts a
> >> collective copyright on the entire work.
> >>
> >
> > This is what the joint copyright is.
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> > Those who contribute their own code have a copyright on
> > their contributions, and the project has their copyright on the  
> > collective work.  Seems the SCA
> > asserts the same thing...just someone has to sign it.
> 
> Nope.  They are not the same thing.  The collective copyright is the  
> copyright on the *set* of elements, but the authors still hold the  
> copyright on the elements themselves.  Think about it as an anthology  
> of poetry or something.  The editor can assert copyright on the book,  
> but each poet still maintains individual copyrights on the poems  
> themselves.
>
> Sun can take the OpenJDK codebase and remove any obligations imposed  
> by the GPL and give you a license to use that code in any way you  
> chose (or in reality, as they allow you...)
> 
> No one can take an Apache project and do that.  Granted, the  
> obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far  
> lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but  
> still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend that if  
> you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the  
> entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is  
> necessary to keep all actors equal.
> 

Sure, but I still retain copyright on my own code in either situation, and with that code I can
do the same, plus they can't change the terms of the license of the code I'm contributing. Maybe
some future work, but not the snapshot. 

Seems more semantics really, and doesn't outright affect the person who contributes their
individual pieces. In either situation someone else, including competitors, may use the code you
contribute mostly how they like and in any way, including ways a contributor may not like, but I
concede a better way may be or is likely doable and could set the playing field more level. But,
like I mentioned about Oracle (and all the others), they're using competitors developers time in
their products and making a good buck on it. 

Seems roughly equal now, and all contributing to either style project reap the benefits of the
collective. I guess that is my premise, and I'm not saying either way is free of glitches; I just
don't see it as working for Sun for free any more than any other company or individual project
owner when it all boils down :-D

Wade