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 2592810BFC for ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25446 invoked by uid 500); 11 Mar 2014 21:52:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 25235 invoked by uid 500); 11 Mar 2014 21:52:44 -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 25228 invoked by uid 99); 11 Mar 2014 21:52:44 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:52:44 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lrosen@rosenlaw.com designates 66.147.248.250 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.147.248.250] (HELO qproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com) (66.147.248.250) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:52:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 12917 invoked by uid 0); 11 Mar 2014 21:52:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by qproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2014 21:52:15 -0000 Received: from box597.bluehost.com ([66.147.242.197]) by cmgw2 with id cMY91n00h4GF2VN01MYCGZ; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:32:14 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ar4hV0pV c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:117 a=NRJ8aB/FPT4S3utBguGD+g==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=7xXQEuv9rCMA:10 a=CAIbOuo8jNoA:10 a=4F77bVRYAAAA:8 a=FxJxCPAPh0wA:10 a=DAwyPP_o2Byb1YXLmDAA:9 a=Zr7miEi8wWIA:10 a=cKsnjEOsciEA:10 a=TJlWWBcRAAAA:8 a=mV9VRH-2AAAA:8 a=o83nqyVRAAAA:8 a=rZ0H18CHAAAA:8 a=Ldw-mHt-AAAA:8 a=-nKXtzaZAAAA:8 a=jyUYpNgfycKab74mlrwA:9 a=XejWi1j1UlCi7EmE:21 a=jjXxVoHgQsITqVao:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=9YgvnxIEo9AA:10 a=SE6XSHMssKwA:10 a=XtUskFTXlegA:10 a=_FjPflug3ysA:10 a=88iI8knYSJUA:10 a=e0DmmPgDXeUA:10 a=tn4vnrMEJvYA:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=omTDMCYR9d00Q--4WMMA:9 a=-znKedCBjHIDi9re:21 a=Zha5tXkvie9yfxd1:21 a=4INFBBYyHChkfUg3:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=QnUYmrsEed8A:10 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rosenlaw.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To; bh=IPssAiW7akZLRRGXD71XhzO0guFMteZ1ACpjmHgmQQc=; b=cxlovbcm2SZ5FLCxQBVDr2gQzHfQDYhvFX7HhrK0rszL2pDUiq+Jja42pRcju5hDtLA2YMBlMRIPD9nsd+HsLG883DHaJkX2+eIvFlOBDc8TkR2JdsPWnuhD1ygnLjDV; Received: from [70.36.224.178] (port=2113 helo=Lawrencei) by box597.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WNUHN-00039e-8F; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:32:05 -0600 Reply-To: From: "Lawrence Rosen" To: , Cc: "Lawrence Rosen" References: <531792EA.7080409@nrl.navy.mil> <388610E4-31F6-4F3D-A45B-C0CCE2E4C8DC@jaguNET.com> <40489573.15098609.1394138791060.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5318E665.2050209@nrl.navy.mil> <676734696.15118170.1394141552754.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <5318F26F.10109@nrl.navy.mil> <531A17D0.4090004@nrl.navy.mil> <99fc889d8341e8f17c61ec281766fb27@scarlet.be> <531B26B2.1080909@spaceroots.org> <79DC387F-6FA0-4038-9812-161DC2FA554B@dslextreme.com> <4a718a37aa02dd65b2b446d792cec605@scarlet.be> <531CBC2D.1090708@spaceroots.org> <531F697F.8060504@nrl.navy.mil> In-Reply-To: <531F697F.8060504@nrl.navy.mil> Subject: RE: ICLA US Government Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:32:04 -0700 Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag Message-ID: <011f01cf3d71$5a6745b0$0f35d110$@rosenlaw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0120_01CF3D36.AE0E6120" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIn7yHQasKJTUL1hizxvnfJnZaIbQI0zR9nAkUbnP4Cenj4sAKKA51IAQGty8UBlordbAK3tbzOAgTi1IMBcgFNOwHgEEOkAx8noGQB7EBvcQEDODP/AXf6cW8Cr4thTAKINYUwApset5+ZDwaZQA== Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {1397:box597.bluehost.com:rosenla1:rosenlaw.com} {sentby:smtp auth 70.36.224.178 authed with lrosen@rosenlaw.com} X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0120_01CF3D36.AE0E6120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evan, =20 It always shames the legal profession when lawyers =E2=80=93 = particularly government or big company lawyers =E2=80=93 parse the words = of typical FOSS agreements so as to create the maximum degree of = confusion and delay.=20 =20 Here's what our ICLA says: ""You hereby grant ... [a] copyright license = to ... Your Contributions." As far as the Foundation is concerned, we're = happy for you to sign that even if you don't actually own any = copyrights, so long as you're not giving us someone else's copyrighted = works without their permission. That's all we mean! Perhaps the ICLA = could be phrased better, but only a government lawyer would doubt our = meaning given what "open source" and Apache is about. And only a = government (or a giant company) lawyer would demand that ASF negotiate a = change to an ICLA that has been in constant use for years. =20 The Foundation protects itself from the ambiguity you noted by = requiring, in that same ICLA, that "you represent that you have received = permission to make Contributions from your employer" (which you = apparently already have!) and that "you are legally entitled to grant = the above license" (which =E2=80=93 considering that the work itself is = public domain =E2=80=93 you are!). =20 And given that your government attorneys are acknowledging that the work = itself is public domain, what in the world does the government or you = risk by giving it to Apache under an ICLA or in a ribbon-wrapped = package? Do you realize that, if we were so inclined, we could reach = into the government with a FOIA request and probably claim that software = even without your cooperation! :-) =20 Lawyers, please let's not negotiate changes to words that don't really = matter. =20 /Larry =20 Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( = www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu=20 =20 From: Evan Ward [mailto:evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:53 PM To: private@commons.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: ICLA US Government =20 Luc, you have expressed my frustrations better than I could have. :) There seems to still be a good bit of confusion over the issues here. I = will attempt to describe the situation as I see it, in FAQ form. Please = correct me if I'm wrong on any point (IANAL). Hopefully this will = provide a common ground of what we know, and remove any remaining = misconceptions. Then, agreeing on the current situation, we will be = equipped to make a decision.=20 1. Do you have the necessary authority to contribute? Yes. My employer has granted me permission to contribute everything that = I have in the past, and everything that I will contribute in the future, = as long as I am a US government employee. The condition that US law puts = on the contributions, and the condition that my employer has chosen to = put on the contributions is that all contributions are in the Public = Domain. 2. Can Public Domain works be copyrighted? No. It is illegal to claim copyright for a work when you, in fact, do = not have that copyright.=20 3. Does including Public Domain works affect the license of the Apache = project? No. Compilations and modifications to Public Domain material are = copyrighted normally. The Public Domain parts (patches) could still be = extracted, but they would be mostly useless without the rest of the = Apache Project's code base.=20 4. So why do you want to sign an ICLA? Apache requires all committers to sign an ICLA in order to make the = relationship with Apache explicit. An ICLA is necessary for write access = to the repository. It is not necessary for me to continue to make Public = Domain contributions. An ICLA is also not necessary for Apache to = continue to accept my Public Domain contributions. 4. Does the Apache ICLA require that copyright exists in the = Contribution? Yes. It reads "You hereby grant ... copyright license to ... Your = Contributions" and "You represent that you are legally entitled to grant = the above license." There are no exceptions. (Section 7 does not apply = because my contributions are my original creation.) In order to grant a = copyright license to a work, copyright must exist in the work.=20 5. If I sign the Apache ICLA will I be able to continue contributing, as = a US government employee? No. Since the Apache ICLA requires that copyright exists for all = Contributions that I author, and since copyright does not exist in the = contributions I make, therefore signing the Apache ICLA legally forces = me to stop contributing.=20 6. Is there an ICLA that permits me to continue contributing. What do = other organizations do for US government authors? Yes. This issue appears frequently when publishing papers. Most = publishers (e.g. IEEE, AIAA) word their copyright agreements carefully = and include special US government sections. For example, the relevant = part of the IEEE copyright form [1] reads, "The undersigned hereby = assigns ... all rights under copyright that _may_ exist in and to=20 the above Work." (I added the emphasis to the key word _may_). This lets = US government sign the agreement because it only grants a license if the = copyright exists. No copyright license is granted in the case of the US = government. When publishers have agreements that requires that copyright exists in = the work I have to send them this letter explaining why I can't sign it = [2]: The U.S. Copyright Act provides that federal government employees cannot = copyright material prepared in the course of their employment. As an = employee of the [name department or agency], I have no copyright = interest to assign, and upon the recommendation of the Office of General = Counsel, [acronym for department or agency], must decline to sign the = copyright assignment.=20 Although for the above reasons I am technically unable to assign any = copyright to [name publication], I still request and authorize you to = publish the submitted article in accordance with your standard editorial = policies. I hope this letter will be sufficient authorization for your = needs to enable you to consider it favorably. As Luc eloquently described in his email, we have been through this = legal swamp in the context of an Apache Licensed open source project = before. After ~6 months of persistence we finally arrived at an ICLA = that was approved by both my employer's legal department, and the legal = department of the open source project. I attached the agreement to a = previous email and have included the relevant part: 2. Grant of Right to Use. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to CS in name of OREKIT project and to = recipients of software distributed by CS in name of OREKIT Project a perpetual, = worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable right to use, to = reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, = sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. The = Contribution is contributed to the public domain under no license. If the = Contribution is combined with copyrighted contributions, the resulting =E2=80=9Cjoint = work=E2=80=9D is partially copyrighted and partially public domain. The public domain = portions may be extracted from the joint work and used by anyone for any purpose. You may have noticed that this agreement substitutes "right to use" for = "copyright license." The right to use my contributions without fear of = lawsuits is all that Apache really wants. (IIUC) This license grants = that safety. Not having an ICLA will not prevent me from making Public Domain = Contributions, or Apache from accepting them. The ICLA only determines = if I commit my patch directly, or if someone else has to commit it for = me. Since the ICLA is just about expediting the current contribution = process, let's sign the Public Domain ICLA and get back to doing what = Apache does best: producing world class software. Best Regards, Evan [1] http://www.ieee.org/documents/IEEECForm121302pdf_1.pdf [2] http://cendi.dtic.mil/publications/04-8copyright.html#326 On 3/9/2014 3:08 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: Le 09/03/2014 18:56, Ralph Goers a =C3=A9crit : =20 On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Gilles = wrote: =20 On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 19:17:33 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote: On Mar 8, 2014, at 6:18 AM, Luc Maisonobe = wrote: =20 Hi Gilles, =20 Le 07/03/2014 20:24, Gilles a =C3=A9crit : Hi. =20 On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:02:40 -0500, Evan Ward wrote: On 03/06/2014 05:16 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: =20 Evan, =20 Doesn't the ICLA put the onus on you to decide what you have the right to contribute and what you don't have the right to contribute? Isn't that a sufficient carve-out? =20 =20 I know I have the "right to contribute", but I don't have the right to grant a copyright license. In that way I don't think it is a sufficient carve-out. What happens when I have all the necessary permissions to contribute something, but I don't have the authority to copyright it? =20 =20 What's the difference between future contributions without this document being signed and past contributions, also without this document having been signed? =20 What's the problem with including public domain work into an Apache product? =20 The problem is neither future contributions nor public domain, the problem is that in order to get write access as a committer, Evan has to sign the ICLA. The Apache processes requires this for everyone, even if in this case it may seem overkill as Evan work can always be copied and published as it is not subject to copyright (at least in the US). =20 =20 As I noted in a post to legal-discuss, if Evan objects to the ICLA over the copyright clause then we really shouldn=E2=80=99t accept any of his contributions as that implies that he is not contributing them under the Apache License (specifically, section 2). =20 =20 Is it really what he states? IIUC, it's rather that he finds it impossible to talk about something (i.e. "copyright") which he thinks does not exist for his contributions. =20 Yes, that seems to be the issue (or rather, non-issue as all the replies I=E2=80=99ve seen seem to believe). =20 =20 Even so, can't he provide permission (to use his "public domain" work) even if it is not necessary (from his point-of-view)? =20 Permission to do what? He can certainly say that he is granting the right to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works=E2=80=9D, since the code is public domain. What he = has a problem with are the words that precede that - =E2=80=9Ccopyright = license=E2=80=9D. Again, IMO there really is no issue here as the text that follows =E2=80=9Ccopyright license=E2=80=9D is what we really care about and = public domain works surely meet that requirement. =20 =20 Then, isn't section 4 that could also be the problem? I mean: a non-proprietary project could grab a "public domain" work, include it in its non-free/non-open/whatever software without retaining any of the attributions. =20 Section 4 is not a problem. Evan knows where the source came from and knows whether or not it is OK for Apache to use it. =20 =20 It seems that by contract with the US government, Evan contributes "public domain" work; IIUC, he seems to think that the code he'd write could be legally "extracted" from the Apache repository and reused _without_ proper (according to the Apache licence) attribution. =20 I don=E2=80=99t see that as the issue at all. All I have read indicates = that the issue is that with a public domain work there is no copyright to grant so he feels he can=E2=80=99t comply with section 2 of the ICLA = (and section 2 of the Apache license). I happen to believe that if there is no copyright to grant then this is not a problem, but I=E2=80=99m not = the one who is questioning signing the ICLA. =20 As far as I know, the Apache foundation does not require copyright transfer (contrary to Free Software Foundation for example). =20 =20 FWIW, yes - public domain contributions could be extracted and reused without attribution. I don=E2=80=99t think anybody here really cares = about that. They are far more likely to use the work as a whole, which will be under the Apache license. =20 Well, the FAS says some attribution is required: =20 =20 = = =20 The problem as I understand it is really a problem of administration. We need an ICLA to protect us and our contributors in case of claims if someone consider the code should not be published by us under our license. Here, we do *not* need this as there is no associated risk, and we have already acknowledged this as per FAQ above. However, we still say "you have to sign the ICLA". This is becoming a Kafka-like = situation. =20 Seriously, can't we just accept him as a committer knowing his work is under public domain and we already include public domain work in several apache products? =20 The modified ICLA Evan showed was the result of similar negociation for the Orekit project I manage in may day job. I really considered this a good compromise as a signed proof of goodwill either we or Evan could show up in case of problem, and it covers everything we need to be allowed to publish derived work from these contributions, by merely including them in larger products. =20 Apache should remain community over code, not administration over = people. =20 best regards, Luc =20 =20 =20 =20 Can't we just say that it is not so? I.e. just as a non-free software is allowed to not retain attribution of a public domain contribution, Apache software is allowed to require that users abide by its license even for the part that comes from public domain contributions. =20 I don=E2=80=99t believe this is even an issue. =20 Ralph =20 =20 --------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 =20 To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: private-help@commons.apache.org =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0120_01CF3D36.AE0E6120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Evan,

 

It always shames the legal profession when lawyers =E2=80=93 = particularly government or big company lawyers =E2=80=93 parse the words = of typical FOSS agreements so as to create the maximum degree of = confusion and delay.

 

Here's what our ICLA says: ""You hereby grant ... [a] =
copyright license to ... Your Contributions." As far as the =
Foundation is concerned, we're happy for you to sign that even if you =
don't actually own any copyrights, so long as you're not giving us =
someone else's copyrighted works without their permission. That's all we =
mean! Perhaps the ICLA could be phrased better, but only a government =
lawyer would doubt our meaning given what "open source" and =
Apache is about. And only a government (or a giant company) lawyer would =
demand that ASF negotiate a change to an ICLA that has been in constant =
use for years.
 
The Foundation protects itself from the ambiguity you noted by =
requiring, in that same ICLA, that "you represent that you have =
received permission to make Contributions from your employer" =
(which you apparently already have!) and that "you are legally =
entitled to grant the above license" (which =E2=80=93 considering =
that the work itself is public domain =E2=80=93 you =
are!).
 
And given that your government attorneys are acknowledging that the =
work itself is public domain, what in the world does the government or =
you risk by giving it to Apache under an ICLA or in a ribbon-wrapped =
package? Do you realize that, if we were so inclined, we could reach =
into the government with a FOIA request and probably claim that software =
even without your cooperation! :-)
 
Lawyers, please let's not negotiate changes to words that don't =
really matter.
 
/Larry
 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu =

 

From: Evan Ward [mailto:evan.ward@nrl.navy.mil]
Sent: = Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:53 PM
To: = private@commons.apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: = Re: ICLA US Government

 

Luc, you have expressed my frustrations = better than I could have. :)

There seems to still be a good bit = of confusion over the issues here. I will attempt to describe the = situation as I see it, in FAQ form. Please correct me if I'm wrong on = any point (IANAL). Hopefully this will provide a common ground of what = we know, and remove any remaining misconceptions. Then, agreeing on the = current situation, we will be equipped to make a decision.

1. Do = you have the necessary authority to contribute?

Yes. My employer = has granted me permission to contribute everything that I have in the = past, and everything that I will contribute in the future, as long as I = am a US government employee. The condition that US law puts on the = contributions, and the condition that my employer has chosen to put on = the contributions is that all contributions are in the Public = Domain.

2. Can Public Domain works be copyrighted?

No. It = is illegal to claim copyright for a work when you, in fact, do not have = that copyright.

3. Does including Public Domain works affect the = license of the Apache project?

No. Compilations and modifications = to Public Domain material are copyrighted normally. The Public Domain = parts (patches) could still be extracted, but they would be mostly = useless without the rest of the Apache Project's code base.

4. = So why do you want to sign an ICLA?

Apache requires all = committers to sign an ICLA in order to make the relationship with Apache = explicit. An ICLA is necessary for write access to the repository. It is = not necessary for me to continue to make Public Domain contributions. An = ICLA is also not necessary for Apache to continue to accept my Public = Domain contributions.

4. Does the Apache ICLA require that = copyright exists in the Contribution?

Yes. It reads "You = hereby grant ... copyright license to ... Your Contributions" and = "You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above = license." There are no exceptions. (Section 7 does not apply = because my contributions are my original creation.) In order to grant a = copyright license to a work, copyright must exist in the work. =

5. If I sign the Apache ICLA will I be able to continue = contributing, as a US government employee?

No. Since the Apache = ICLA requires that copyright exists for all Contributions that I author, = and since copyright does not exist in the contributions I make, = therefore signing the Apache ICLA legally forces me to stop = contributing.

6. Is there an ICLA that permits me to continue = contributing. What do other organizations do for US government = authors?

Yes. This issue appears frequently when publishing = papers. Most publishers (e.g. IEEE, AIAA) word their copyright = agreements carefully and include special US government sections. For = example, the relevant part of the IEEE copyright form [1] reads, = "The undersigned hereby assigns ... all rights under copyright that = _may_ exist in and to
the above Work." (I added the emphasis to = the key word _may_). This lets US government sign the agreement because = it only grants a license if the copyright exists. No copyright license = is granted in the case of the US government.

When publishers have = agreements that requires that copyright exists in the work I have to = send them this letter explaining why I can't sign it = [2]:

The U.S. Copyright Act = provides that federal government employees cannot copyright material = prepared in the course of their employment. As an employee of the [name = department or agency], I have no copyright interest to assign, and upon = the recommendation of the Office of General Counsel, [acronym for = department or agency], must decline to sign the copyright = assignment.

Although for the above reasons I am = technically unable to assign any copyright to [name publication], I = still request and authorize you to publish the submitted article in = accordance with your standard editorial policies. I hope this letter = will be sufficient authorization for your needs to enable you to = consider it favorably.


As = Luc eloquently described in his email, we have been through this legal = swamp in the context of an Apache Licensed open source project before. = After ~6 months of persistence we finally arrived at an ICLA that was = approved by both my employer's legal department, and the legal = department of the open source project. I attached the agreement to a = previous email and have included the relevant part:

2. Grant of Right to Use. Subject to the terms and = conditions of this
Agreement, You hereby grant to CS in name of = OREKIT project and to recipients
of software distributed by CS in = name of OREKIT Project a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, = no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable right to use, to = reproduce,
prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly = perform, sublicense,
and distribute Your Contributions and such = derivative works. The Contribution
is contributed to the public = domain under no license. If the Contribution is
combined with = copyrighted contributions, the resulting =E2=80=9Cjoint work=E2=80=9D = is
partially copyrighted and partially public domain. The public = domain portions
may be extracted from the joint work and used by = anyone for any purpose.

You may have noticed that this agreement = substitutes "right to use" for "copyright license." = The right to use my contributions without fear of lawsuits is all that = Apache really wants. (IIUC) This license grants that safety.

Not = having an ICLA will not prevent me from making Public Domain = Contributions, or Apache from accepting them. The ICLA only determines = if I commit my patch directly, or if someone else has to commit it for = me. Since the ICLA is just about expediting the current contribution = process, let's sign the Public Domain ICLA and get back to doing what = Apache does best: producing world class software.

Best = Regards,
Evan

[1] http://ww= w.ieee.org/documents/IEEECForm121302pdf_1.pdf
[2] http:/= /cendi.dtic.mil/publications/04-8copyright.html#326

On 3/9/2014 3:08 PM, Luc Maisonobe = wrote:

Le 09/03/2014 18:56, =
Ralph Goers a =C3=A9crit :
 
On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux=
.org>
wrote:
 =

On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 =
19:17:33 -0800, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Mar 8, 2014, at =
6:18 AM, Luc Maisonobe <luc@spaceroots.org>
wrote:
 
Hi =
Gilles,
 
Le 07/03/2014 =
20:24, Gilles a =C3=A9crit :
Hi.
<=
pre> 
On Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:02:40 -0500, Evan =
Ward wrote:
On 03/06/2014 05:16 =
PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
 
Evan,
 
Doesn't =
the ICLA put the onus on you to decide what =
you
have the right to contribute and what you don't =
have the
right to contribute?=C2=A0 Isn't that a =
sufficient =
carve-out?
 
=
 
I know I have the "right to =
contribute", but I don't have
the right to =
grant a copyright license. In that way I =
don't
think it is a sufficient carve-out. What =
happens when I
have all the necessary permissions =
to contribute something,
but I don't have the =
authority to copyright =
it?
 
&n=
bsp;
What's the difference between future contributions =
without
this document being signed and past =
contributions, also
without this document having =
been signed?
 
What's the =
problem with including public domain work into =
an
Apache =
product?
 
Th=
e problem is neither future contributions nor public =
domain,
the problem is that in order to get write =
access as a
committer, Evan has to sign the ICLA. =
The Apache processes
requires this for everyone, =
even if in this case it may seem
overkill as Evan =
work can always be copied and published as it
is =
not subject to copyright (at least in the =
US).
 
&=
nbsp;
As I noted in a post to legal-discuss, if Evan =
objects to the
ICLA over the copyright clause then =
we really shouldn=E2=80=99t accept
any of his =
contributions as that implies that he is =
not
contributing them under the Apache License =
(specifically, =
section
2).
 
 
Is it really what he =
states? IIUC, it's rather that he finds =
it
impossible to talk about something (i.e. =
"copyright") which he
thinks does not =
exist for his =
contributions.
 
<=
pre>Yes, that seems to be the issue (or rather, non-issue as all =
the
replies I=E2=80=99ve seen seem to =
believe).
 
 
Even so, can't he provide permission (to use his "public =
domain"
work) even if it is not necessary =
(from his =
point-of-view)?
 
= 
Permission to do what?=C2=A0 He can certainly say that he is =
granting the
right to "reproduce, prepare =
derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly =
perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions =
and
such derivative works=E2=80=9D, since the code =
is public domain. What he has
a problem with are =
the words that precede that - =E2=80=9Ccopyright =
license=E2=80=9D.
Again, IMO there really is no =
issue here as the text that =
follows
=E2=80=9Ccopyright license=E2=80=9D is what =
we really care about and public domain
works surely =
meet that =
requirement.
 
 
Then, isn't section 4 that could also be the problem? I mean: =
a
non-proprietary project could grab a "public =
domain" work, include
it in its =
non-free/non-open/whatever software without retaining =
any
of the =
attributions.
 
Section 4 is not a problem. Evan knows where the source came from = and
knows whether or not it is OK for Apache to use =
it.
 
 
It seems that by contract with the US government, Evan =
contributes
"public domain" work; IIUC, =
he seems to think that the code he'd
write could be =
legally "extracted" from the Apache repository =
and
reused _without_ proper (according to the =
Apache =
licence)
attribution.
<= pre> 
I don=E2=80=99t see that as the issue at =
all.=C2=A0 All I have read indicates that
the issue =
is that with a public domain work there is no copyright =
to
grant so he feels he can=E2=80=99t comply with =
section 2 of the ICLA (and
section 2 of the Apache =
license).=C2=A0 I happen to believe that if =
there
is no copyright to grant then this is not a =
problem, but I=E2=80=99m not the
one who is =
questioning signing the =
ICLA.
 
As =
far as I know, the Apache foundation does not require =
copyright
transfer (contrary to Free Software =
Foundation for =
example).
 
 
FWIW, yes - public domain contributions could be extracted and =
reused
without attribution.=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t =
think anybody here really cares about
that.=C2=A0 =
They are far more likely to use the work as a whole, =
which
will be under the Apache =
license.
 
We=
ll, the FAS says some attribution is =
required:
 
 
<http://www.apache.org/=
legal/resolved.html#can-works-placed-in-the-public-domain-be-included-in-=
apache-products>
 
=
The problem as I understand it is really a problem of administration. =
We
need an ICLA to protect us and our contributors =
in case of claims if
someone consider the code =
should not be published by us under our
license. =
Here, we do *not* need this as there is no associated risk, =
and
we have already acknowledged this as per FAQ =
above. However, we still
say "you have to sign =
the ICLA". This is becoming a Kafka-like =
situation.
 
Seriously, =
can't we just accept him as a committer knowing his work =
is
under public domain and we already include =
public domain work in several
apache =
products?
 
The modified =
ICLA Evan showed was the result of similar negociation =
for
the Orekit project I manage in may day job. I =
really considered this a
good compromise as a =
signed proof of goodwill either we or Evan =
could
show up in case of problem, and it covers =
everything we need to be
allowed to publish derived =
work from these contributions, by merely
including =
them in larger =
products.
 
Apache should =
remain community over code, not administration over =
people.
 
best =
regards,
Luc
 <=
/pre>
 
 
 
Can't we just say that it is not so?=C2=A0 I.e. just as a =
non-free
software is allowed to not retain =
attribution of a public domain
contribution, Apache =
software is allowed to require that users
abide by =
its license even for the part that comes from =
public
domain =
contributions.
 
<=
pre>I don=E2=80=99t believe this is even an =
issue.
 
Ralph<=
/pre>
 
 
-------=
--------------------------------------------------------------=

 
 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: private-unsubscrib=
e@commons.apache.org
For additional =
commands, e-mail: private-help@commons.apac=
he.org
 
 
 
 =

 

------=_NextPart_000_0120_01CF3D36.AE0E6120--