Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer;
  b=qXY6zTet2x5DqdKZAZMi4pvw0t8jt9pMtz81hiNLjm4nbPfIw8UTCUQLzY1a8p7ajt9V1bPVDKYO4acnemmN21i2xxSWT6TkhHWCzeYiJLnf6pGy/alvG+p2cpxR/ow3ZME+WPaOcKBUHFcme5yGnTdD39xZ6aZRDcm7eg/9ni0=
  ;
Message-Id: <9D3668A0-3AE3-416A-AC24-67CD687EDD37@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <20080709144723.C83BF30C153@jmason.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Subject: Re: Publishing the process page 
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:38:28 -0700
References: <20080709144723.C83BF30C153@jmason.org>


On Jul 9, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Justin Mason wrote:

>
> 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?

yes, but the data is in a database.  Having the checkbox means the  
status is queryable: having a comment means it definitely is not.  I  
think this is a big enough advantage on its own to keep the checkbox  
whether or not we decide its legally required.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> --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
>


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