www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2015 02:49:12 GMT
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/12/2015 22:47, Greg Stein wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org
>> > <mailto: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.
>>
>> How do you square that position with section 2 of the ALv2 that grants
>> various rights including the right to sublicense?
>
> Oh ho!!! Nice.
>
> Then never mind :-)
>
> Tho I still say "adopt" ... hehe

Actually, I agree with your previous position.  And with Jim's
suggestion that this is a fork, not a donation.  And (as Seinfeld
would say)... not that there is anything wrong with that.  :-)

With an ICLA/SG, we can license the code as we wish.

With ALv2, we can sublicense (as in providing the code under a
different license), but still need to comply with the terms of the
original license.  In particular, we need to treat the copyright
headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do.

The difference is subtle.  It is theoretically possible that this
could be important if we were to ever want to create an ALv3,
particularly if ALv3 is anything other than a proper superset of ALv2.
Not something that we need to be overly concerned about, but something
that we will need to capture for posterity.

> Thx.
> -g

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message