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 19:49:30 GMT
ICLA data is published in several
places, that's been a settled matter
for many years now.  SGA data remains
a bit of a black box still.





>________________________________
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com>
>To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>; Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>;
Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> 
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:46 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
> 
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:38:02AM -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> We certainly don't treat SGA grants as
>> if we are being stewards for public
>> rights: those records are all kept relatively
>> confidential in a private repo.  I'm
>> sure reasonable requests for a particular
>> SGA would be granted, but I don't recall
>> anyone ever asking us for that.
>
>This is actually an interesting point. The ASF places a fair amount of
>emphasis on its rigorous IP intake procedures (or see it seems to me)
>as a 'selling point' for ASF projects, but doesn't having
>non-disclosued SGA grants (and CLAs -- I assume records of who has
>signed a CLA are confidential?) conflict with that? We (the public)
>never see proof of the 'chain of title' that the ASF is claiming as
>one of its beneficial characteristics.
>
>- RF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
>>     From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>>     To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>     Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>; Daniel Shahaf
>>     <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
>>     Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:32 PM
>>     Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
>> 
>>     On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>>     wrote:
>>     > 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 version control that you'd like to sublicense.
>>     > The SGA 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.
>>     >
>> 
>>     One further complexity.  What is in SVN and what is in the SGA are not
>>     necessarily the same.
>> 
>>     For example, with Oracle's SGA for OpenOffice, the code checked in
>>     included Oracle owned code, but also many 3rd party modules.  The SGA
>>     made it clear which subset of the files were covered by the SGA.  But
>>     it took the podling several months more to review the files, identify
>>     the 3rd party ones, classify their licenses,  and in many cases remove
>>     and/or replace them with permissively licensed code.  In some cases we
>>     found that some needed files were missing and we had to go back to
>>     Oracle to get a supplemental SGA.
>> 
>>     That's the benefit of the effort we put into the Incubation/IP
>>     Clearance procedures, as well as our per-Release IP reviews.  There is
>>     no shortcut to getting the kind of clarity and confidence one has with
>>     an approved Release.
>> 
>>     -Rob
>> 
>>     >
>>     > ________________________________
>>     > 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
>>     > works."
>>     >
>>     > 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
>>     > license?
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
>>     >
>>     >
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
Mime
View raw message