www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: code without an iCLA ...
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:33:10 GMT
Michael,

I think the easy way to look at this is by dealing with a concrete case.  Here is my personal
recommendation.

If you have in mind contributing a few patches to an Apache project, the safe thing to do
is simply file an iCLA.  Then you're covered for anything you submit that you have the right
to submit.

You are not obligated to make any submission, and the iCLA does not apply to anything that
you do not submit yourself.  But it is on file, and when the submission is recognizably from
you and you don't identify it otherwise, everything is easy.

There are two tripwires, of course,

 1. Your employment situation may have restrictions on whether you have the right to make
such submissions (with or without an iCLA from you).

 2. The submission might not be exclusively (or even partially) your original work (i.e.,
it is a derivative work or includes contributions of others or is actually a third-party artifact).

There are ways to treat (1) and (2), but it is not necessary to examine those unless they
arise in the situation at hand.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Meeks [mailto:michael.meeks@novell.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 09:55
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: code without an iCLA ...


On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 12:32 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ICLAs are required for everything that is non-trivial.  Calling 2K
> lines "borderline" was being polite and non-confrontational; treat it
> as an understatement.

	Fair enough :-) But I'm still unclear on my question: which is one of
fact: are there non-trivial - by which I mean ~10 line complicated
pieces of code included into ASF projects without a CLA being signed ? 

> I also encourage you to read section 5 of the Apache License, Version
> 2.0 itself.

	This seems orthogonal; it seems to solve a good faith problem wrt.
patch posting: to stop people inserting licensing trojans into the code
by posting patches, and then claiming they were not AL2 licensed
afterwards (something special to non-copy-left licenses I guess).

>   The license, the CLAs and the grants are intentionally
> overlapping in scope.  The intent is that we are covered multiple
> ways.  Furthermore, we have fine members like Craig who, while
> unfailingly polite, are vigilant.

	So - let me try to ask it more simply:

	a) You include 10 lines of code (under AL2 cf. section 5 etc.)
	   that you do not own (ie. not CLA'd) into the 'Apache Foo'
	   project (hypothetically)

	b) How then can 'Apache Foo' migrate to AL3 without seeking
	   permission for those 10 lines (or without re-writing /
	   removing them).

	Or as a corollary of b) - why is AL2 not a 'plus' license - to help
with this ? and as a further question, how was this handled for the
upgrade to AL2 ?

	Just trying to understand the first-principles that these decisions are
based on here.

	Thanks,

		Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


Mime
View raw message