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: [RE-VOTE #3] adoption of mod_combine subproject
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:13:39 GMT
On 4/4/2012 7:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I will absolutely not shirk my own responsibility, which in this matter, is
>> neither the responsibility of a committer placing code at the ASF, an officer
>> acting under the direction of the BoD, nor a a director of the ASF.  Which is
>> to say, my entire responsibility as a member of the project and the foundation
>> consisted of bringing the concern to the chair of the project and VP Legal,
>> and let you all have your fun.  I'm done with this dialog.  Cheers.
> I will be honest: I have no idea what this whole debate is about.
> From the vote within the PMC, it's clear that the consensus is
> to fold the code in, that we are satisfied that we are covered,
> IP-wise, due to Graham's iCLA on file as well as other guarantees
> noted in the (long) thread regarding the code submission.
> So what is the problem?? That someone doesn't like the result
> of the vote and is hoping to have it overturned, somehow??
> I also fail to see how this codebase is any different from other
> modules which we've folded in from "outside" like mod_proxy_html
> and Paul's various heartbeat/cluster stuff which came in with hardly
> any debate and certainly not dragging legal into it all...

In December I pointed out, owing to my own ignorance, that the submission
needed to follow the incubator IP clearance process.  You *agreed* with the
comment somewhere along the way.  Checking off that box appeared necessary
to us both.  There were other issues, nothing to do with legal@ which you
are bringing up above, but that's all distraction from the purpose of this
thread here at legal@

And then...

Roy answered, No, Asked and Answered; we do not follow that *incubator*
IP clearance process for new submissions authored by existing committers.
The PMC simply accepts the code based on its own judgement that its own
committers are correctly handling the IP concerns.

And then...

Of course, Sam said that legal provided no such guidance.  I shoved this
all back to legal-private and said "figure it out, then explain it to us".

Sam suggests that revised legal IP clearance requirements, as a matter
of policy, across top level projects, is sufficiently described by;


So, simply time for spring cleaning.  I've asked Sam to document one
specific legal policy and have gained this reference email post, and
will ensure that neither the httpd.a.o or apr.a.o dev pages refer to
other older, stale ip clearance policies.  Certainly won't try to clean
it up across the whole foundation, but at least everyone has this same
email documentation to refer back to.

In the meantime, on the referenced bug, there was no objection in 7 days
to Graham's claim, so Graham will proceed and PMC considers this resolved
and this thread is ended.  As Roy argued in the first place, and Sam now
finally concurs, the external IP Clearance process was never applicable
to committers with icla's.  One would suppose the IP Clearance process
remains applicable only for multiparty or code-grant based submissions,
just not for single party, author-contributed icla-based submissions.

View raw message