www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: code without an iCLA ...
Date Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:11:55 GMT
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

View raw message