www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 10:33:13 GMT
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 06:42:54PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 30, 2012 9:06 AM, "Michael Meeks" <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> >...
> > I hear
> > about Section 5 in the context of changes to the code automatically
> > being under the ALv2. My reading of Section 5. is that Licensor is the
> > ASF, and thus since none of those changes will be intentionally
> > submitted to ASF's infrastruture etc. - none of them will be available
> > to others under the ALv2.
> 
> I'm unclear on this aspect, to be honest. Let's just say that I would
> recommend continuing your contribution statements. (Or even better:
> collect actual CLAs)
> 
> I don't think you want to be in a situation where somebody argues a
> patch to a file licensed under ALv2 by the ASF can be construed as
> applicable to *our* codebase regardless of the location of that patch.
[...]
> If somebody extracts a portion that has none of your derivations, then
> they might be able to argue we could be the Licensor, and (thus)
> Contributions fall back to us.

If that were a correct interpretation of ALv2 section 5 it would seem
to turn ALv2 into a copyleft license. I think there is universal
agreement that this is not possible. Independent of that, I think it
is not a correct interpretation of the ALv2 text. But if it *were* a
correct interpretation, I don't think the general use of
LibreOffice-style contribution statements or CLAs would alter the
situation.

- RF


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


Mime
View raw message