www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Understanding non-release licensing at the ASF
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:55:31 GMT
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>

The ICLA says simply, what you publish through the mechanisms of the ASF
is covered under AL 2.0. Operative word, "you".  It is and remains your own
work, Copyright you.  You have distributed it through the act of publishing
it
to the ASF (on an email list, in a bug ticket, into svn, or what have you).

The ASF, upon your submission, has not published it AFAICT.  If you just
edited the web site, and you now push that edit live, it becomes a
publication
of the ASF owing to the fact that the ASF if now using it as their web site.
(We have peer review of web site changes through mailing lists to keep tabs
on these works).  If the ASF aggregates and uses your contribution *in its
next release*, it becomes a publication of the ASF.  (We have peer review
of project releases to keep tabs on these works).

I think the claim I hadn't considered is that all other non-release
aggregations,
e.g. checking out an svn or git tree, or an auto-assembled source tarball
such as a nightly or snapshot build, or even someone's auto-generated
docs download of the current documentation trunk might not be a publication
of the ASF.  All individual license grants still apply.  In this case,
these other
distributions which are not a work copyright the ASF are still subject to
the
same ICLA terms that these works would be distributed (not "released",
not even "published").

The useful term here is "recipients", anyone in receipt of your work
published
*to* the ASF under the ICLA is a recipient, through any distribution
channel
of the ASF (svn, bug ticket, mail list etc), by receiving that work they
have
a reasonable assumption that the grant you made is licensed under the
AL 2.0 unless it was clarified by you (I've published code under both the
AL and a more permissive BSD license simultaneously, for example.)

The ICLA is just a more affirmative assertion of license grant than the AL
2.0
clause 5., although both are applicable.

Mime
View raw message