www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: CLA vs Grant
Date Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:24:59 GMT
On Sunday 07 January 2007 05:39, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> However, I'd be fine with exceptions on a case-by-case basis though.
> For example, if a project is already open-sourced and under the ALv2
> and wants to move here, then a CLA from contributors is likely to be
> enough.  But, for a work that comes from a closed source work, I feel
> that a software grant is required - even if every committer already
> has a CLA on file.

This is an interesting paragraph as it mixes up the differences between "Open 
Source" (i.e. licensing) with "Open Development" (i.e. the processes).

Justin, I think Henri also refers to a simple case of; I sit in my chambers 
and hacking on some "stuff", perhaps as an experiment, and somewhere down the 
line I want to move it into a project at ASF. It is not open nor closed 
source (no license yet), nor open development (done in my study at home).
But, many larger chunks of code happens exactly that way, I develop it, see if 
it can work, if so commit and post a notice for comments...

So I would also like to know where are the official boundaries?

Personally, I think that any codebase that has only existed on existing 
committers' own system and not been distributed, need no additional grant.


DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message