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: Clarifying CCLA as an optional document
Date Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:20:13 GMT

> On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:40 PM, Craig L Russell <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:
> Well, we're dealing in hypotheticals here. You would know better that I whether there
was ever a case similar to this.
> If a corporation came to Apache with a claim that an employee went outside company policy
and committed code that the company considered a significant company asset, I believe that
shortly after receiving the complaint, Apache would "buckle". 

No, it would depend on the history of the code and who knew what and when. If we are talking
about a few days after a commit, no problem. Before it is released, no problem. After the
first release, most likely we would remove the code from future releases.

After several releases, we might consider removing it if a Lone Ranger committed the code
and nobody else in their company knew about it, or if we could determine that it was a genuine

But, in general, we do not remove contributions just because a company lays claim to them
after the fact, unless ordered to do so as part of a legal process. Having any other policy
would invite companies to abuse our communities for their own profit.

Note that this is different from a claim that code has been improperly committed by some third
party. That is infringement and would be pulled immediately. 

> And how much of Apache resources would you be willing to spend defending such a claim
in court?

It depends on why the claim occurred. Mistakes among friends would never get that far. Deliberate
abuse would be fought with our entire defense fund. Publicly.


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

View raw message