www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:29:22 GMT
On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 07:11:23PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> I read it the same way as Matthew. I cannot understand how the SGA, as
> quoted, is not a license to the general public once the Foundation has
> chosen to "distribute" the software in question to the general
> public. Even if the Foundation explicitly said "We are distributing
> this software to the general public, but you the general public have
> no right to distribute it further", I do not see how that cancels out
> the existing upstream broad copyright license granted under the SGA,
> assuming the software is identical or nearly identical apart from
> noncopyrightable differences.

The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
"general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
distributed.

When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release.

> I have to ask, why does the ASF put in that language about
> "recipients" in the SGA and its CLAs? I have always found that rather
> peculiar. It is a question of general importance given the widespread
> reuse of Apache CLAs by other projects. 

The patent license is from the patent owner to the recipient of the
software containing their contribution.  It is not a license from the
ASF because we are not allowed to sublicense the patents.  And, yes,
that license takes effect as soon as the contribution is sent to
one of our forums, with or without a CLA/SGA, and passes through
to recipients of subversion data for those contributions that were
deliberately contributed to the ASF.

....Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message