www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.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 / wh...
Date Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:01:24 GMT

On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:

>The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow
>the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain
>under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now.  Instead, it will be
>necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
>I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such
>Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.

Is this truly the only possible solution?  Would the ASF accept emails on
dev@groovy from these 20 people giving the one person or entity that did
sign the SGA permission to re-license their work?  The Exhibit A for
additional SGAs for contributors that did not contribute entire files will
be difficult to describe.  If the right to re-license was part of an
existing contributor agreement prior to donation, then this wouldn’t be an


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

View raw message