www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:32:10 GMT
> Now we are asking somebody else to add
> an Apache License header with the intent of taking code of unknown
> provenance back in to the fold and distributing it to others.

Nope, the code had ALv2 headers and we would only take exactly the last revision which still
had this ALv2 headers. We would _not_ take code after the license switch!

All the source history is available and 98% of it is done from Apache committers with a valid
iCLA. The question is more if the iCLA applies to this code (knowingly distributed under ALv2)
too.

LieGrue,strub

--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 6:22 PM
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Mark
> Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > I hope I'm finding the right words. I'll try ;)
> >
> > Imo all the iCLA discussion is overrated ^^
> >
> > The iCLA is a 'safety net' for the ASF. All the 'you
> can take that code and do what you like' is already granted
> if a person releases a piece of code under the Apache
> License!
> > What the iCLA does is additionally telling us 'yes I'm
> really aware that I must have written that code myself'.
> >
> > So it doesn't really change much if someone doesn't
> have an iCLA on file _as_long_ as noone else comes and
> claims that this certain code is NOT written by the
> committer but from another person and it's _not_ free
> source. Or if someone claims the same for a patent.
> >
> > At least that's my take on it.
> >
> > Can anyone confirm/clarify this view?
> 
> We have taken a lot of care in our processes -- from
> requiring ICLAs
> for all committers, setting up PMCs which are responsible
> for
> oversight, as well as infrastructure support that sends out
> commit
> messages to the relevant mailing lists whenever a commit is
> made.
> 
> None of this exists by default for code developed
> elsewhere.
> 
> Understandably many of our projects are going to depend on
> code
> developed elsewhere.  If we are duped along with
> others, we will take
> action to correct such matters.
> 
> What is being described here is quite a different
> matter.  We have a
> codebase that (from what I have been told) includes some
> code that was
> originally developed here at the ASF, and intentionally
> made
> available[1] under an incompatible license by an individual
> who also
> asked to resign from the ASF.  Now we are asking
> somebody else to add
> an Apache License header with the intent of taking code of
> unknown
> provenance back in to the fold and distributing it to
> others.
> 
> Any PMC that takes an attitude of "Caveat emptor" is not
> providing
> proper oversight.
> 
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] https://github.com/sonatype/sonatype-aether
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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