Henri Yandell wrote:
> What I mean is that most contributions are derivative works
> of the Apache product they are contributing to.
That is a level of recursion (and time travel) that I never imagined. My imagination is weak. But I'll grant the hypothetical.
It is always true that a derivative work of an ALv2-licensed Apache project may be contributed back to us under ALv2 or any other appropriate FOSS license. This is good!
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2015 11:50 AM
To: ASF Legal Discuss <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Lawrence Rosen <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Third Party FOSS licenses
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Lawrence Rosen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Henri Yandell asked:
> The majority of contributions are based on the pre-existing work.
> So how can "As long as those works are indeed separate and
> independently created by identified (or anonymous) authors"
> be correct?
The phrase "based upon" is part of the definition of "derivative work" (17 U.S.C. 101). You may be right that the majority of contributions to Apache projects are themselves derivative works of even earlier original works. That wouldn't surprise me since that is the preeminent objective of FOSS software.
This may be what Sam referred to as "marbled beef" or "pee in the pond". We (independent Apache projects) collect that stuff and publish it.
It doesn't matter how much creativity it takes to combine separate and independent works and create derivative or collective works of software. But it does take an identified (or anonymous) human being (or a legal entity like ASF) as its author in order to create a separate and independent work.
What I mean is that most contributions are derivative works of the Apache product they are contributing to.