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 Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:52:00 GMT
Hi Roy!

Reality is not black nor white.

Thing is that the Maven PMC (before my time) didn't veto the 'experiment' to develop the new
artifact resolver over at github. But it was originally always intended that this must get
back to the ASF, otherwise would not get used.

Bad thing is that it took some time and the integration is honestly pretty unclean in the
form that it is like a cancer with some metastases. At the time Jason changed the license
and told the Maven PMC that he would not contribute back, a lot of effort and code change
had been done on our side too already. 

Of course it would have been better (now we are all wiser) to just drop the year of development
going into the project and continue with maven-2.2.x. But sadly the message was not so clear
but more like a playing for time as it turns out.

So there is a good bet that the 'Licensed TO the ASF' really was meant that way initially!

Plus Jason must _exactly_ know the difference!


LieGrue,
strub


--- On Fri, 7/29/11, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 8:06 PM
> 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
> 
> 

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


Mime
View raw message