www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From j.@jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Subject Re: Publishing the process page
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:23 GMT

Craig L Russell writes:
> 
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 
> >> and section 5;
> >>
> >>     Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state  
> >> otherwise,
> >>     any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the  
> >> Work
> >>     by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> >>     this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
> >>
> >> No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
> >
> > Thanks Bill, and David for bringing this up.
> >
> > So - the case is made for getting rid of the checkbox.
> >
> > Does anyone have a case for keeping the checkbox?
> 
> My understanding is that the checkbox is the way the contributor can  
> "explicitly state otherwise".
> 
> Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is  
> *not* licensed to Apache?

Couldn't they simply say so, in the associated comment alongside the
patch?  We're talking about bug trackers here, right?

--j.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message