Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.178 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFG6u8HH6H+hdtEFw-ojwtc-rRMO1cSEz=dxu7kMLHRabVOQvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4ACD4639-E3FF-4A16-AFFA-FBE8B8C24155@dslextreme.com>
	<CAFG6u8HH6H+hdtEFw-ojwtc-rRMO1cSEz=dxu7kMLHRabVOQvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:19:29 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CALhtWkcsnK3_eGxfsDsDhn9YRatLybJTQK-yXMp0oSBLTJOTNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IP Clearance
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since Ralph is quoting me quoting the policy, I thought that I should
insert a word.

My understanding is simple: if we find a little bit of source with a
category A license in it lying around, we're willing to take the risk
that the  license comment is a mistake or worse. If we find a lot of
source, we're not.

In the particular case at hand, we have a combination of work original
to Apache, derived work of work from Apache, and new work. The
existence of a significant quantity of the third category here, if
nothing else, is what led me to cite the policy that we would need a
grant to fork it back into the ASF, even if every single file had an
AL notice in it.


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-cl=
earance/ip-clearance-template.xml says that a software grant is required fo=
r an external codebase that is brought into the ASF. With code that is lice=
nsed under an Apache license why is this required? Obviously, others using =
Apache licensed software don't require a software grant from us to incorpor=
ate the code, nor would we be likely to give one.
>>
>> I'm curious about this in particular since the question of what to do ab=
out Aether has come up on the Maven dev list and it was categorically state=
d that the last Apache licensed version could not be brought into the ASF w=
ithout a software grant, even though Aether was born from code that was par=
t of Maven itself.
>
> Can you verify that we have an ICLA on file for every committer that
> made a change to Aether?
>
>> 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