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 19:51:39 GMT
Ah, okay. 

I am reasonably sure Red Hat would be willing to provide public copies
of any SGAs it has signed with the ASF. 

- RF



On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:49:30AM -0800, Joe Schaefer 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.
> 
> 
> 
>     ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
>     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