www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Date Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:09:33 GMT
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???

2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their
> contributions to
> > the documentation under ASL?...
> Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
> been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
> contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
> I agree.
> > ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> > relicensing, is that okay?...
> I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
> document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
> open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> > ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a
> real
> > signature, etc)...
> If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
> how it works so far ;-)
> -Bertrand

Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+

View raw message