www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Stahl <...@openoffice.org>
Subject Re: [legal] ICLA paragraph 7
Date Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:36:46 GMT
On 13.08.2011 00:28, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Normally, paragraph 7 is used to allow commits of code from
> non-committer contributors such as patch writers, before they become
> committers on projects.
> It's not normally used for bulk submissions of code.

hmm... guess ApacheOOo is not a "normal" Apache project, because it has 
a "sister" project in LibreOffice that is likely to be developed in 
parallel by people who maybe don't want to become part of another 
project, which raises interesting issues like this  :)

> More below...
> On Aug 12, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Michael Stahl wrote:


>> is it sufficient to put something like this into the SVN commit message:
>> "Submitted on behalf of a third party: [author name]; no licensing
>> restrictions"
>> context:
>> a volunteer who is currently working in GSoC over at LibreOffice (who
>> has not signed an Apache ICLA) has given me permission to contribute a
>> bunch of makefiles that he wrote, with no licensing restriction.
> This sounds like a contradiction. If there are ~1000 lines of
> boilerplate licensing headers, how come there is no licensing
> restriction? Licenses are in large part about restrictions. The most
> common restriction is the requirement to include the licensing terms
> themselves in downstream distributions. This is not an onerous
> requirement but it is a restriction. Even the DWTFYW license
> http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ has the restriction that you can only change
> it if you also change the name!

the author sent me a private mail with the files where he wrote that 
"you can do anything with it under any license." (meaning me 
personally); because i specifically asked about getting it into 
ApacheOOo, that ought to be covered.

the boilerplate in the files actually looks like a copy/paste error 
because it actually is the standard OpenOffice.org license header with 
"Copyright 2000, 2011 Oracle", which needs replacing anyway because the 
author never assigned his copyright to Oracle; have to talk to him 
about that.
(the files were likely created from templates that for some reason have 
not been updated with the LibreOffice license boilerplate.)

>> in this case we are talking about ~30 new files, totalling ~2000 lines
>> (of which ~1000 are the boilerplate licensing headers...).
> Again, the project has to establish its processes, but the cleanest way
> to handle it is for the author to submit the contribution via a JIRA.
> Some people think the JIRA route is easier than any other.

currently there is no Apache bugtracker for ApacheOOo, only the old 
OpenOffice.org bugzilla.

if i turn the contribution into a patch, send that to the ooo-dev list, 
CC: the original author, and have him "OK" the contribution to the 
mailing list, is that an acceptable process?

> IMHO 2000 lines of code is borderline for a submission without an ICLA.
> Best to discuss on your project mail list and have the project decide.

ok, will do so...

> But don't wait for a definitive answer from this mail list. You are
> unlikely to get one. And if someone gives you a definitive answer
> someone else will contradict it.

...unless of course somebody tells me i'm on the wrong track altogether :)

> Craig


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

View raw message