www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-66) CERN license category?
Date Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:15:18 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-66?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12786868#action_12786868

Henri Yandell commented on LEGAL-66:

Replying to the 10:35pm comment (and very much my opinion):

The software grant (which isn't a grant but a license to us) is a better fit to the AL 2.0
than other category A licenses may be. We may have a category A license whose attribution
clauses run in a different dimension to ours and make things painful (insisting that the attribution
be in a UI popup for example). It also provides in section 2 a small additional statement
that the author can license the code to us (specifically us rather than license it to people
in general) and that they have to let us know if this becomes in doubt.

So the grant is desirable - especially when getting code that has come from a company rather
than an individual. 

Other smaller perks:

* Allows us to move the code to AL 3.0 someday providing we don't conflict with the grant's
scope of license.
* Simplifies things as we don't list software grants in LICENSE/NOTICE. We can treat this
as 'our' code.

Replying to the 11:08 comment (imo):

Abstract hypotheticals are always fun :) If we find out that source in our product is not
under the license we understood it to be, we deal with it accordingly. Everything is risk
management. The more well known a product, the less likely the entire product will have an
issue (though one file may). The less well known a product (say because it's coming out of
a closed development environment of a commercial entity) the more likely there might be something
big. I would consider the former to have the lesser cost if anything shows up as I'd expect
things to be pretty reasonable around a single file. All hypothetical and vague. Ymmv. 

Summarizing with simple advisories:

* Favour software grants/CLA when the copyright holder(s) contribute substantial code.
* Prefer contributing fixes back to other projects instead of forking.
* Don't bureaucratize ourselves and block forking for category A.
* Allow forking/modifying of category B on an exception basis.

> CERN license category?
> ----------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-66
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-66
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Benson Margulies
> If OK, do we also add an ASL notice?
> // Copyright (c) 1999 CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research.
> // Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software and
> // its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
> // provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
> // both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> // supporting documentation. CERN makes no representations about the
> // suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is"
> // without expressed or implied warranty.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message