www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:24:29 GMT

On 28/07/2011 11:42 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I think that situation might be precisely why a grant is required.
> I've seen tons of code outside Apache where someone intended to use
> the appendix at the bottom of
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0, but used the ASF notice
> instead. The author can claim that this was a mistake unless we have a
> grant from them.

Once you go down this road, that is if you take into account arbitrary 
errors in a protocol, then all contracts and agreements can be 
repudiated. For example, if we admit that the commit of 2010-04-02 was a 
mistake, then one could argue that the (future) grant by Sonatype was 
signed by mistake as well.

> In any case, by the time you get to version 1.0, you have the
> 'copyright sonatype' version. So, if you are right, it's only an old
> and pre-useful version which is 'contributed', and all useful version,
> are otherwise.

Usefulness is indeed for Maven developers to judge.

QOS.ch, main sponsor of cal10n, logback and slf4j open source projects, 
is looking to hire talented software developers. For further details, 
see http://logback.qos.ch/job.html

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

View raw message