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: Is GitHub forking subject to clause 4b?
Date Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:12:17 GMT
See the original post.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> There's some good discussion in this thread, but more to the point: what
> is the specific question that one of our projects is asking here?
>
> Separately: immaterial of the legal details, where is the business or
> community process question?
>
> - That is, are you (or others) concerned that the ASF might go after
> other developers forking our project code on github?
>
> In that case, it's a policy decision to discuss in Legal Affairs if and
> when it happens, and *only if* we decide we care.  I can't see the ASF
> doing that unless someone else is purposefully and egregiously breaking
> our license - incredibly unlikely.
>
> - Or are people concerned that third party developers who's code is
> included in an Apache project on github might complain to the ASF?
>
> If so, this is a process risk to our project communities, because the
> ASF will then (if our lawyers say we need to) have to ask the project to
> remove the offending code or otherwise remediate the issue in a timely
> manner so that we're respecting the other party's license.
>
> But it's not much of a legal risk, because the ASF would always want to
> ensure we comply with someone else's license.  We'd change the code
> before anyone would take us to court.
>
> - Shane
>
> Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote on 12/27/16 6:43 PM:
> > BTW, I was just wondering.. as it's late December and all:
> >
> > It seems technically anyone forking an Apache repository on GitHub,
> > modifying some source code, and then contribute it as a pull request
> > (or not), could be in violation of our clause 4b
> >
> >>      (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
> >>          stating that You changed the files; and
> >
> >
> > unless they also modified each file they propose changes to - which
> > probably we would not want in the pull request.
> >
> > (The pull request itself constitutes a contribution under clause 5,
> > but that does not except from 4b - in addition, a forked branch might
> > be public before it is sent as a pull request)
> >
> >
> > Would keeping a branch on your own github repository constitute
> > "redistribution", or are we good with "carry prominent notices" as
> > long as you don't publish/tag the source code?
> >
> > (GitHub shows the list of recent commits pretty prominently!)
> >
> >
> > And who would be in violation, GitHub or the user? GitHub would be
> > "any medium" i think.
> >
> >
> > This is also related to an earlier discussion: A practice in some ASF
> > projects to do a release candidate git tag only in a personal GitHub
> > repository and use that personal URL as the subject of the release
> > vote - this reduces "pre-publishing" the RC tag to wider audience but
> > can be seen as "distribution" as GitHub creates a 'release' archive of
> > the tag.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message