www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: Understanding non-release licensing at the ASF
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:33:58 GMT
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho
<rec@apache.org> wrote:
> On 25.08.2015, at 23:08, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, it says "distributed", not "released". Is it really appropriate to
> make this strong distinction between contribution time and release time?
> If yes, why?

My gut is telling me: no, we shouldn't be making this distinction and
assume that ALL contributions under ICLA done in good faith are
immediately licensed under ALv2 *by the Foundation* to all recipients.

I would like, however, to receive a stronger endorsements one way
or the other. My gut feel no longer cuts it for me ;-)

Thanks,
Roman.

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


Mime
View raw message