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 18:39:53 GMT
It was not until I clicked "send" that it occurred to me that I should find out if "relicensing"
is in the index of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law."
 It is.

Fortunately, what is said in the section on "Relicensing" on pp. 252-253 is nothing that leaves
me embarrassed for writing the post below.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:33
To: 'legal-discuss@apache.org'
Subject: RE: code without an iCLA ...

OK, this is nice but I am queasy about (1).  As far as I can tell, "Re-licensing" is an invented
term in our discussions about other-license code contribution/combination and it is very unfortunate.
 I don't believe it what is actually permissible is as described in (1).  I would love for
us to stop using that term on the Apache OpenOffice.org podling (and the LibreOffice folks
need to watch it also around their desire to multiple-license code that is originally LGPL2
only as well as what may later come to them under the ALv2).

The way you know you are honoring the compatible license is the need to provide requisite
NOTICE entries and the fact that one had better not remove any legal (or quasi-legal) notices
on that code that is being relied upon.  I believe this also applies to code licensed under
ALv2 but not via original contribution to an Apache Project.  Third-party licenses are third-party

It is useful to notice how different the header notices for ASF-created code are in contrast
to header notices for non-ASF-created code, even when the license is ALv2.

Note: Other variations are possible in conjunction with an SGA, but I don't think (1) is meant
to apply to that.

 - Dennis

[My queasiness is practice at being the understudy for a walk-on Larry Rosen in a sequel to
"The Lincoln Lawyer."]

PS: To my chagrin, I have used "re-licensing" for a considerable time before I realized that
it is a bogus concept, especially when carried out by stripping legal notices on third-party
code, however compatible the expressed license.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:12
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: code without an iCLA ...

On 8/26/2011 11:54 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Just trying to understand the first-principles that these decisions are
> based on here.

Just some random IANAL comments that might satisfy most of your questions;

 1. Any work clearly authored under an AL compatible license may be
    relicensed under the AL.  This includes AL2 and any future AL3.
    AL3 will not demand that contributors do more than AL2, but its
    license terms may be reworded or changed.  The GPL prohibits this
    which is why GPLv2 -> v3 is painful (and in fact, the GPLv2 plus
    license can be read to violate clause 6. of that license).  The
    AL/BSD licenses deliberately allow this flexibility.

 2. The ASF seeks voluntary contributions, although we have adopted
    abandoned works in the past which were appropriately licensed
    in the first place.  The CLA reaffirms this and reaffirms to the
    ASF that the contributions are in good faith.  Section 5. usually
    of the AL covers this, and the CLA simply reaffirms it.

 3. At the httpd project, the threshold for a CLA is that the submission
    is something creative or inventive.  Bug fixes, typo corrections
    and the like don't fall under this.  Small works of 10 lines or so
    rarely fall under this.  We ask for a CLA for larger more original
    works.  But due to 5. and a contributor's explicit statement that
    "here is code I'm offering under the AL2", there's no absolute
    requirement for a CLA, "2000 lines" is a product of someone's
    imagination, just as 10 lines is.  The PMC should pick a policy
    and attempt to stick to it, and evaluate exceptions on a case by
    case basis.

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