www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:43:51 GMT
One question I have here is the standing of headers.

OK, there's a source file out there with a header asserting that it is
licensed under ALv2. I've run into many source files where ignorant
people put incorrect headers in place to which they had no right. So,
as I see it, the grant is what gives us an actual thread connecting
the legal owner to the actual intent to license. It's one thing to be
able to run a diff and say, 'ok, this is the identical file that left
ASF.' As soon as it isn't, then Some Human (or corporate entity) has
copyright on the work, and we don't know if that Human is the person
who slapped the header on the file. This is where I always thought the
scale factor came in. For a small amount of code, we can tolerate some
risk. For a large amount of code, we want a grant?

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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

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

View raw message