Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59736 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2008 14:48:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Jul 2008 14:48:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 716 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2008 14:48:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 465 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jul 2008 14:48:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 443 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jul 2008 14:48:19 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:48:19 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jm@jmason.org designates 72.232.31.42 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.232.31.42] (HELO soman.fdntech.com) (72.232.31.42) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:28 +0000 Received: from jmason.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by soman.fdntech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B71BA5180 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:47:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: by jmason.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C83BF30C153; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:47:23 +0100 (IST) Received: from jmason.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C449A30C152 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:47:23 +0100 (IST) To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: Publishing the process page In-Reply-To: From: jm@jmason.org (Justin Mason) X-GPG-Key-Fingerprint: 1368 71CE 3627 9CD3 FA1B 0B63 3091 7972 298B C7D0 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:47:23 +0100 Sender: jm@jmason.org Message-Id: <20080709144723.C83BF30C153@jmason.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 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