Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.de;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=gJ/T4nnds6BHKcggktFegOwJG5VGLOEYFrhiaCnq8U0BJTMYyMaE8aezjsrJGYOd1SNxQurWDGbJCLYjJLR+z+htf3GdsEaBK2QQ2BJFwnNzCwICBIJy/+ETz/0I3SHmH6be3RKqDcKKut6lmI/5T/8AtOXheS77Q4FItPMtl8A=;
Message-ID: <1311875368.18238.YahooMailClassic@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:49:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: IP Clearance
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAMk_BegSjHVWoHYBHFjSZnXfMh3MHVWSrGtzJhmnxi_EGSym3Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I hope I'm finding the right words. I'll try ;)

Imo all the iCLA discussion is overrated ^^

The iCLA is a 'safety net' for the ASF. All the 'you can take that code and do what you like' is already granted if a person releases a piece of code under the Apache License! 
What the iCLA does is additionally telling us 'yes I'm really aware that I must have written that code myself'. 

So it doesn't really change much if someone doesn't have an iCLA on file _as_long_ as noone else comes and claims that this certain code is NOT written by the committer but from another person and it's _not_ free source. Or if someone claims the same for a patent.

At least that's my take on it. 

Can anyone confirm/clarify this view?

txs and LieGrue,
strub

--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox <brianf@infinity.nu> wrote:

> From: Brian Fox <brianf@infinity.nu>
> Subject: Re: IP Clearance
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 5:36 PM
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Sam
> Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.xml
> says that a software grant is required for an external
> codebase that is brought into the ASF. With code that is
> licensed under an Apache license why is this required?
> Obviously, others using Apache licensed software don't
> require a software grant from us to incorporate the code,
> nor would we be likely to give one.
> >>
> >> I'm curious about this in particular since the
> question of what to do about Aether has come up on the Maven
> dev list and it was categorically stated that the last
> Apache licensed version could not be brought into the ASF
> without a software grant, even though Aether was born from
> code that was part of Maven itself.
> >
> > Can you verify that we have an ICLA on file for every
> committer that
> > made a change to Aether?
> 
> I'm staying clear of this particular debate but you've
> peeked my
> interest on the ICLA with that question.
> 
> Does an ICLA unilaterally cover every code an signee
> happens to
> write? I would think if those committers chose to commit it
> back then
> it would be covered, but if someone else does it, how does
> the ICLA
> come in to play?
> 
> >
> >> Ralph
> >
> > - 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
> 
> 

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