www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Committers' hobby projects
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:23:31 GMT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
> social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
> We've seen it before, on several occasions.
>
> Examples please????  /Larry
>
>

Alex's narrative was the illustration of this.  In any event, social
issues aren't legal issues, and in the context of Commons, such a
donated component would come through its sandbox and would never be
released unless the PMC felt comfortable with its level of support, by
which I would consider social concerns mitigated.

Matt

>
>
>
>
>
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:20 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Committers' hobby projects
>
>
>
> There is technical, and there is social.
>
> Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It is
> a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it before, on
> several occasions.
>
> On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
> functional.  Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
> exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
> didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
> was always my intent).
>
>
>
> That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
> previously with *your* software or who else you gave it to. (As long as that
> earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!)
>
>
>
> I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine is
> trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
> distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the GPL
> through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain the
> right to create new derivative works and distribute them.
>
>
>
> Roy is correct:
>
> As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs.  All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
>
>
> ... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
>>  http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>
>> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
>> think that is really true.
>
> Yes, it is true.  This question has been asked and answered before.
>
>
>> Recognize that the software has been
>> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
>> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
>> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
>> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
>> control, and then call it ASF code.
>
> Sure we do.  See Shambhala.  As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs.  All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
>
>> The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
>> recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
>> of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
>> several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>>
>> If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
>> commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
>> into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>> ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
>> process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
>> general@incubator
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>
>
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
> cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).
>
>
>
>
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
> functional.  Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
> exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
> didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
> was always my intent).
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message