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: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:46:52 GMT
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