www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:35:58 GMT
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Now that's a different story! Where did we learn that? This makes the code highly suspect!
We only accept code of *known provenance* under *compatible licenses*. We don't just change
license headers to make code appear safe!

You failed to include the link mentioned in [1] above:

https://github.com/sonatype/sonatype-aether

Scroll to the bottom, and you will see "Eclipse Public License, v1.0".
 Now, if Sonatype were to provide us with a Software Grant, there
would be no further need for questions.  But if Sonatype were unable
or unwilling to do so, I would insist that the Maven PMC demonstrate
that they have provided appropriate oversight in taking in this code.

Ralph keeps asking the wrong question here: "why is a software grant
required".  The (too!) simple answer is that it is not required; but
is quite likely is the simplest way to achieve the effect desired.

> /Larry

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message