www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:19:41 GMT
Sorry I should have looked at the actual
terms before commenting... yes it's clear
you are granting the public rights as well
under the SGA, and because it's discussing
distributions that includes version control,
not simply vetted releases.

I'm not sure how you'd work out a situation
where we have some GPL-licensed SGA-gifted code
in versioncontrol that you'd like to sublicense.
TheSGA gives you that right, but the GPL doesn't.
Presumably the SGA trumps the GPL here because
eventually we will ask some committer to change the
license on the GPL'd code anyway.

> From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
>To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>; Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>

>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:11 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:06:10AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> An SGA is between "you" and the "org", not
>> you and the general public.  All we are doing
>> is exercising one of the rights granted to us
>> in the SGA- the right to public redistribution.
>Ok, I may be misunderstanding the SGA. Point 2 says:
>"You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software 
>distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, 
>no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, 
>prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, 
>sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative 
>To me, that reads as a grant of rights to the general public in addition 
>to the rights granted to the Foundation. If I obtain code from the 
>Foundation that was provided to the Foundation under the SGA (and 
>obviously I should perform appropriate diligence to ensure that that's 
>the case), I'd have thought that I had been granted a license to 
>exercise the rights described. Are you saying that that's not the case 
>unless the copyright holder has somehow granted me an additional 
>Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
View raw message