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


Mime
View raw message