www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:06:36 GMT
On Jul 28, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> On 29/07/2011 12:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Ceki Gülcü<ceki@qos.ch>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> As I was intrigued by this question, so I looked up the earliest
>>> version of sonatype-aether [1]. All file headers in [1] say:
>>> 
>>> /*
>>>  * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
>>>  * or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
>>>  * distributed with this work for additional information
>>>  * regarding copyright ownership.  The ASF licenses this file
>>>  * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
>>>  * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
>>>  * with the License.  You may obtain a copy of the License at
>>>  *
>>>  *   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>>>  *
>>> 
>>> The first sentence clearly indicates that the code is licensed to the
>>> ASF under CLA - that much seems beyond dispute.
>>> 
>>> The code was donated to the ASF on 2010-04-02 albeit committed to
>>> github. Later changes do not invalidate the initial donation.

If that were true, then it would have been submitted to one of the
many places where people can contribute to the ASF.  Find one and
you have a grant of license.  Seeing text that has been posted on
some other site is not a grant -- it is just a draft that the owner
has not yet submitted to us.

Do we have the legal right to take that code and do with it as the
license suggests?  Yes, of course.  This isn't a licensing issue.
It is a social issue.

>>> Furthermore, noting that the second clause of the ICLA states that the
>>> grant is perpetual, assertions about any further requirements, e.g. a
>>> software grant, contradict clause 2 of the ICLA, which I assume no one
>>> would knowingly dare to do.
>> 
>> There is a difference between what we are legally entitled to do and
>> what our policies are.  I encourage you to read the following email by
>> Roy Fielding on this matter:
>> 
>> http://s.apache.org/QeN
> 
> My message was an implicit response to Roy's message that you cite. How can you have
binding agreements (or any policy for that matter) where words and sentences no longer carry
their straightforward meaning?
> 
> If the original grant is not valid, why would the newer one be? Either the original grant
is a grant or no other grant is a grant.

Your logic is flawed.  The original grant is not a grant because it does not
take the form of an SGA.  The github code is not yet a contribution to the ASF
because it was not submitted to the ASF, AFAIK.  It therefore has not been
contributed to the ASF, which means it is not the subject of any of our prior
agreements with the contributor in iCLA or CCLA form.  One could now ask the
copyright owner to make it a submission, or to simply commit it to our subversion
themselves, and that would make it a contribution and be subject to all of those
prior agreements.

A new SGA isn't necessary.  However, it would accomplish the desired effect
and is sometimes easier to obtain than the original author's consent,
particularly when the author already assigned all his copyrights to his
employer and the employer might be more inclined to be a contributor.

If they decline to make the grant, that is fine -- all contributions are
voluntary.  We move on and we stop having endless discussion without any
hope of resolution.

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


Mime
View raw message