www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:29:02 GMT
In this specific case, if the Maven PMC chose to fork the code they would be doing it assuming
they would be taking responsibility for it and maintaining it with no expectation of further
contributions from the original authors.  To further add to this, the PMC only is considering
their options at this point and wants to know if it is one they can consider. No formal proposal
has been made to fork the code in question.

Ralph

On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> I don't want to express anything but my personal view on this list. So here
> goes:
> 
> I have long argued in public that a license like AL2 is as good as a CLA for
> specific code. What a CLA can additionally accomplish, however, is that it
> can express an on-going commitment to contribute future code under certain
> terms even when there is no express license associated with the
> later-developed code.
> 
> I'm not convinced that these distinctions are entirely clear in ASF
> procedures, but I'm still learning.
> 
> /Larry
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Struberg [mailto:struberg@yahoo.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:49 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> txs and LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox <brianf@infinity.nu> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Brian Fox <brianf@infinity.nu>
>>> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
>>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>>> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 5:36 PM
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Sam
>>> Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Ralph Goers
>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-
>> author/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.xml
>>> says that a software grant is required for an external
>>> codebase that is brought into the ASF. With code that is
>>> licensed under an Apache license why is this required?
>>> Obviously, others using Apache licensed software don't
>>> require a software grant from us to incorporate the code,
>>> nor would we be likely to give one.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm curious about this in particular since the
>>> question of what to do about Aether has come up on the Maven
>>> dev list and it was categorically stated that the last
>>> Apache licensed version could not be brought into the ASF
>>> without a software grant, even though Aether was born from
>>> code that was part of Maven itself.
>>>> 
>>>> Can you verify that we have an ICLA on file for every
>>> committer that
>>>> made a change to Aether?
>>> 
>>> I'm staying clear of this particular debate but you've
>>> peeked my
>>> interest on the ICLA with that question.
>>> 
>>> Does an ICLA unilaterally cover every code an signee
>>> happens to
>>> write? I would think if those committers chose to commit it
>>> back then
>>> it would be covered, but if someone else does it, how does
>>> the ICLA
>>> come in to play?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Ralph
>>>> 
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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