www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2015 22:47:37 GMT
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:

> > 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
> > the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
> > email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
> Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone else
> anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is sufficient.

To a point. See below.


> > 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
> > consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
> This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the code
> is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.

> You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.

I would suggest that we leave the original copyright headers in the files,
but prepend them with our standard header. ie. keep ours at the top of all
files, but the old header is just below it.

I believe the key difference between adopting(*) (not forking, or receiving
a donation) a codebase, and one arriving under a slew of ICLAs and/or SGAs
is that we do not have the right to *sublicense*.

The ICLA and SGAs give us that right. That allows us to revise the
copyright headers(**). It also allows us to release this stuff under ALv3
or ALv2.1 or whatever comes along in the future.

Adopting a codebase? Nope. We only get to use it under the ALv2 that it had
when we adopted it.


(*) else-thread is a query about terminology; I think "adopting" avoids the
negative connotation of "fork", and it does not presume an active entity
"donating" something to us
(**) socially, we prefer the prior copyright holder to remove those as a
clear acknowledgement of the right to relicense, but we *can* do it

View raw message