www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: IP Clearance
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:50:52 GMT
Sam Ruby wrote:
> My your reasoning, we would never require an ICLA.  And if the code in
> question is small and obvious enough, that is clearly defensible.
> When we are talking more than that, adding an ICLA adds clarity.  As
> does a Software Grant.

What "clarity" are you expecting to add by using an ICLA that is not available by a clear
use of the Apache License?

> Apparently you have never had the joy of working for a large,
> conservative corporation with deep pockets.  We have had several
> instances of a user doing their own code scans, identifying issues
> that we had inadvertently overlooked, and these issues were reported
> to the appropriate PMC which promptly addressed the issue.

I have had that joy, including for several years working for the same "large, conservative
corporation" that you work for. I still don't understand your point. What's their concern
about?

> We don't publish software grants publicly for privacy reasons.  I have
> in the past, and intend to in the future, answer simple factual
> questions about the existence of these documents without revealing
> personal information.

What "privacy reasons" are important to you or to ASF or to the contributors?

> Meanwhile, I encourage us to move on to questions that relate to an
> actual plan, and not dwell on hypotheticals.  Is it possible that
> under some circumstances we would decide to pursue an unfriendly fork
> without consulting the owners of a piece of code?  I wouldn't rule
> that out, but I will insist that the end result not be an end run
> around the ASF requirement that PMCs provide appropriate oversight
> over the provenance of their code bases.

This I agree with!

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam
> Ruby
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:08 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Ralph Goers
> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > OK.  This is obviously a statement on policy, not legality, which is
> fine.
> >  However, I'd like to understand the rationale for the policy a bit
> better
> > rather than just accepting a blanket statement.  Are their some
> consequences
> > I'm not thinking about or aware of in using code we are legally
> entitled to?
> >  Is it just a matter of preserving goodwill?
> 
> My perspective is that it is much more than that.
> 
> My your reasoning, we would never require an ICLA.  And if the code in
> question is small and obvious enough, that is clearly defensible.
> When we are talking more than that, adding an ICLA adds clarity.  As
> does a Software Grant.
> 
> None of these are the only way to obtain such clarity, but often times
> the easiest.
> 
> > Again, I'm simply trying to reconcile this policy with the fact that
> we
> > won't give software grants to anyone because we tell them the Apache
> license
> > is all they need.  I've actually had this question for quite a while
> as I've
> > looked at some of the things that are listed as being donated
> > at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html and in several
> cases
> > I don't understand what extra value the grant provides over the
> software
> > license.
> 
> Apparently you have never had the joy of working for a large,
> conservative corporation with deep pockets.  We have had several
> instances of a user doing their own code scans, identifying issues
> that we had inadvertently overlooked, and these issues were reported
> to the appropriate PMC which promptly addressed the issue.
> 
> We don't publish software grants publicly for privacy reasons.  I have
> in the past, and intend to in the future, answer simple factual
> questions about the existence of these documents without revealing
> personal information.
> 
> Meanwhile, I encourage us to move on to questions that relate to an
> actual plan, and not dwell on hypotheticals.  Is it possible that
> under some circumstances we would decide to pursue an unfriendly fork
> without consulting the owners of a piece of code?  I wouldn't rule
> that out, but I will insist that the end result not be an end run
> around the ASF requirement that PMCs provide appropriate oversight
> over the provenance of their code bases.
> 
> > Ralph
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> > On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> > At Apache, all contributions are voluntary.  We do not accept code
> > from copyright owners who don't want us to have it, even if we have
> > the legal right to adopt it for other reasons.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org



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


Mime
View raw message