www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 11:07:06 GMT
On May 31, 2012 6:32 AM, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Works for me. I agree it's a stretch, and with your advisement ... wrong
:-)

As I said, I am way outta my bounds, and was speculating on worst-case
interpretation. Seems it is nothing to be concerned about.

Thanks for the extra input, Richard.

Cheers,
-g

(*) apply caveats; we know IANAL

Mime
View raw message