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 21:53:34 GMT
Yes it's all member-visible data- sometimes
we need to look at it when seeing what work
an incubating project needs to do to clean
up its files, because occasionally those grants
list exceptions for certain items in the
initial checkin that the project needs to
deal with.





>________________________________
> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>To: legal-discuss@apache.org 
>Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:50 PM
>Subject: Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
> 
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>Do all Apache Members have direct access to the SGA's?   If so, that
>provides an additional level of oversight.  Sure, there will be always
>be the paranoid ones who will doubt whether there really was an SGA,
>or for that matter anyone's iCLA.    And some continue to question
>Obama's birth certificate.  But you need to draw the line somewhere.
>
>IMHO, the relevant facts of the SGA (what files are covered) is more
>important than putting a microscope over corporate letterheads and
>attorney signatures.  And both with the Oracle and the IBM SGA's this
>information was made public in SVN.
>
>-Rob
>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> 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
>>>    >
>>>    >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
Mime
View raw message