Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94B3AE380 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27078 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2013 18:14:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 26688 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jan 2013 18:14:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 26681 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jan 2013 18:14:01 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:14:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.214.179] (HELO mail-ob0-f179.google.com) (209.85.214.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:13:54 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id un3so3211777obb.10 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:13:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=nNw93N49epG2eToeJZ/OPf8spZT84Rd6eAeNRDyH+yc=; b=F3zBACmt7h8mwsZ0PjyD1SSJRij2LGC4ufQa3B0zz7lN3dMAUbmMy1OOTQQbGhXdvX XVWp9qWhz8Okvtv7hZgntCz2IJo0Uo2C1wDfXqmJfZKxI8StbtTOcskK6mF3vmDr/B2c RFzD6BkY/Fmhe3Ynp3IDScA4SrSxZ87zdelsbHNHq3jO5z1UnO23GAGYyOpqGqCwvMCe Am6aAkhDkItU8P0kjm3q8oraPJ4wNGcLYBTCzpWOVzLMY5DnMbDHSUfMI2mA5acvupTl 2T3T74aNCaRwBLi4YlzP5yUk9CmUK11SmrxZ/slWZWahq5Ad2ofgEJVmVemfQk7XnhP3 lEIQ== X-Received: by 10.182.117.5 with SMTP id ka5mr7122349obb.49.1359656013155; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:13:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.2.48 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:13:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: David Nalley Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:13:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: To IP Clearance? or not? To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmmVU5PypBqzRC6eTTSueY4rCRoS0RjGJ9Su3i7pvzvQdbwEk/TFs45RoppX6OlhYRzR+fH X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Jan 31, 2013 11:47 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:38 PM, David Nalley wrote: >> > Hi folks: >> > >> > CloudStack is currently discussing adding some code which includes >> > some chunks of 3rd party code that is licensed under ALv2. [1] >> > >> > Essentialy the situation is: >> > >> > * Developer found some ALv2 code that fit a specific need from a >> > non-ASF open source project that is in the same space. >> > * Developer modified that code to work in CloudStack >> > * Developer submitted that for review/inclusion, at which point >> > someone noted the Copyright attributions and our discussion began. >> > * If accepted (and I think the assumption is that it would be) the >> > code would be included in the CloudStack codebase and distributed in >> > future CloudStack releases. >> > * The total line count is around 1500 lines of code that wasn't >> > developed specifically for CloudStack >> >> The issue here is the absolute requirements that all code >> contributions be _voluntary_. The policy has been that ' very small' >> bits of code under 'category A' licenses can be committed, but, if >> it's larger than small, it must be actively contributes by its author. >> Whether we need IP clearance is again a matter of judgement based on >> size. >> >> It strikes me as too big to be collected without active participation >> from the author, but I leave it to others to comment on whether it's >> big enough to require full IP clearance. > > No no... You're talking about code that arrives with the intent on > *moving* its locus of development to the ASF. The IP clearance is > needed to ensure we have the necessary rights to do the work here. It > sounds like this is (and will remain) a third-party library. That its > development location isn't moving here. > > If the code is merely a dependent library, pulled into our version > control for ease of packaging, then that's just fine. In httpd, we do > that with PCRE. In APR, we do that with Expat. There is ample > precedent, as long as the code is properly marked (ie. leave all of > its headers alone, noting the correct copyright holder and license). > > If the code is a third-party library, and further work is intended, > then I would suggest a vendor branch. Check in the original library > onto a vendor branch, copy that into trunk, and apply changes into > trunk. For "large" modifications (for some suitable definition of > "large"), then it may be desirable to apply additional ASF headers > into the files, noting "portions are copyright ASF, and subject to > ALv2" (or whatever the right text is; you get the idea) > > So... IP clearance in this situation depends on long-term intent, I would say. > > Cheers, > -g > This was 3rd party code - but it has already been morphed and development was continued on that code outside of the 'upstream' and is expected to continue to diverge within our codebase. So effectively we are talking about adopting this code and making it ours, not just inclusion for convenience. --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org