www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Clarification of "distribution" under the SGA
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:32:43 GMT
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