www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Date Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:29:49 GMT
The discussion was rekindled in another thread
and is referred to from http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-33


On Tue, Jul 08, 2008, David Crossley wrote:
> On Mar 28 2008 David Crossley wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > 
> > > Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
> > > projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
> > > checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
> > 
> > It is my understanding that any contribution, via either
> > mailing list or an issue tracker, is for inclusion unless
> > the originator explicitly says "Not a contribution".
> > 
> > In fact, the LICENSE-2.0 text explicitly says so under
> > the definition of Contribution and goes further. It is
> > dangerous to try to summarise these things.
> > 
> > That Jira checkbox intends to makes it easier for them
> > to specify not a contribution. I find it to be misleading.
> > It should be the other way around, and it should link
> > directly to the definition of contribution. Why do we need
> > a checkbox at all? They can say so in their comment.
> There was no response to this issue, unless it happened in
> a new thread that i missed. Would someone please reply
> to tell me if i am mistaken.
> -David

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