www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Understanding non-release licensing at the ASF
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:19:12 GMT
Maybe it was facetious remark that you have not seen it. I can attest to seeing examples of
the following clean ups in Apache POI over the years.

(1) copyright holder of a sample document objected to it being in our svn after several years.
We removed it from SVN.

(2) a small GPL licensed file was found in a release. We removed it from the repository. RAT
scan was made into a required RM step.

(3) someone pointed out a version of a source file with apparently earlier provenance with
a conflicting license. Another even older version was found via Internet search with an acceptable
license. This file was kept.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 27, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thursday, August 27, 2015, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Thanks for taking the time to shed light on this discussion on both posts.  Clarification
requested...
>> 
>> On Aug 25, 2015 9:28 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Aug 25, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I've asked this question on the thread where the discussion originated,
but I'd
>> > > like to repeat it here to add to the list of points that I would like
>> > > to see explicitly
>> > > validated:
>> > >
>> > > 4. Because of language in ICLA, the "Grant of Copyright License" is specifically
>> > > targeting "the Foundation and [to] recipients of software distributed
>> > > by the Foundation"
>> > > and as such does NOT guarantee that contributions NOT included into a formal
>> > > ASF release (since only releases can be considered distributed) are
>> > > licensed under
>> > > the ALv2.
>> >
>> > No, anything we distribute has been distributed, and this license applies
>> > to all recipients of all software we distribute (including software that
>> > doesn't contain that contribution).
>> >
>> > > IOW, if an entity outside of ASF takes non-released contributions said
entity
>> > > needs to obtain a separate license Grant of Copyright License from original
>> > > contributors OR wait for ASF to produce a release.
>> >
>> > Absolutely not.
>> 
>> But the operative function here is a license to our Copyright.  If the ASF has not
published, and therefore not copyrighted the code, the license has simply been granted by
another author.
>> 
>> Going to Jim's point, when does GPLv2 code granted to the ASF to relicense get 'published'
as an ASF work?  Not if committed verbatim with GPL LICENCE.  So when?  The moment an ASF
committer changes the LICENSE/NOTICE/individual copyright headers?  When it is assembled as
a snapshot/nightly build?  When it is advanced as a vote to release?  Or when the code is
approved by the PMC as a release?
> It may make a difference if the project is CTR or RTC
> 
> With RTC the commits have been "reviewed" by the PMC who are supposed to do due diligence
on licensing and other concerns.
> 
> With CTR the recent commits (less than 72h old) have not completed review by the PMC.
> 
> On the other hand, officially the PMC can be a bit "loosy-goosey" until time comes for
a release as long as at release time the PMC reviews the code changes for provenance, etc.
> 
> In practice, I have never seen a PMC perform such queries at release time... So I can
only conclude that *either* the PMCs are not doing such a review *or* all the code is always
perfect.
> 
> In fact, I do not recall ever seeing a single commit's provenance questioned (outside
of incubation)... 
> 
> Oh well, I'll return to my "committers only commit stuff they are entitled to commit
and committing signifies intent to license" ivory tower of ignorance ;-)
> 
> On a side note, if we are saying that code in source control is not a release, then that
would neatly resolve the "should svn/git have LICENSE and NOTICE files at each release root"
argument with a "no" answer that was/is unanswered in the LEGAL JIRA for some time
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my phone

Mime
View raw message