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 23:19:16 GMT
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Ceki Gülcü <ceki@qos.ch> 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.
>>> 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.

Please pause.  Take a breath.  Carefully read what I have pointed to
and am about to say before responding.

Is it legal for us to take the code that was forked and developed for
a while under a compatible license (and now is being further developed
under an incompatible license)?  Abso-f'ing-lutely!!! (presuming we
are talking about the code prior to the incompatible license change).

What I see here is that we have a sh***y situation that people are
proposing to make worse by proposing procedural workarounds.  My
initial reaction: that's ill advised.  But that's not my call.

What I am saying is that if the Maven PMC wants to go down that path,
they had better be prepared to dot their I's and cross their T's.
Document the h**l out of what they are doing so that none of the
downstream consumers can question the provenance of the code.  Be
prepared to answer hard questions.  I'll certainly be asking a number
of them.

Matters of law are non-negotiable.  Matters of policy are.  However
you had better have a solid reason and a d**n good plan before you
challenge an established policy like everything here is a voluntary
contribution.  Search the archives.  For example, look at earlier
versions of the Apache License.  It is a part of our DNA and who we
are at this point.  It is not something we are going to change

I strongly encourage the Maven PMC to engage in a dialog with Sonatype
and/or use Aether as it is intended.  If Sonatype says H**L NO and the
PMC collectively decides that it has the resources to bring up to date
and establish a clean codebase that meets their current needs, then
please present THAT plan, and don't focus on absurd hypothetical

- Sam Ruby

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

View raw message