www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What does "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" mean?
Date Fri, 16 Dec 2016 02:19:44 GMT
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:40 AM Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:39 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> Shane,
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:21 PM Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
> wrote:
> John D. Ament wrote on 12/14/16 9:10 PM:
> > Ok, so that's what I thought.  So if an arbitrary github repo includes
> > (their own developed source code) that includes this clause, they are
> > technically granting the ASF a license to use that code, right?
> Legally?  Who knows.  I'd bet almost all lawyers would say no, or at
> least not without knowing more about the specific code you're talking
> about.  In particular, that exact phrase doesn't say *how* it's licensed
> to the ASF (and we're already presuming that the legal owner of the code
> in that file is the one who authorized that statement to be put there,
> right?)
> ASF policy wise?  Apache projects should generally only accept willingly
> and specifically given contributions.  So just because someone happened
> to slap that on their github repo doesn't mean we should just grab it.
> For the ASF and Apache projects, our IP provenance relies on both our
> license, our ICLA/CCLAs, and the fact that we have written policies that
> define who can be a committer and how PMCs can make releases.  It's
> usually good if a code author (or someone who could otherwise legally
> sign an ICLA in terms of granting us the right licensing rights to that
> code) actually submits the work to some Apache project before we put it
> in a release.
> In any case, I would *not* trust (IP provenance wise) arbitrary github
> repos that include that line, unless they were also very clearly marked
> as being under the Apache 2.0 license.
> Obviously, for code that is *in* an Apache project, it should be saying
> this in the code as per our source header policy:
>   https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> But that's because we know the committer who checked in the code, along
> with that more explicit statement of how it was licensed to the ASF, and
> how the ASF is releasing it under Apache 2.0.
> Does that make sense?
> Is this a general question out in the world, or a more specific question
> from some podling/project?
> Ha... wish it were that simple.
> I'm asking because a community I'm working with.. that just went to
> Eclipse Foundation... has a bunch of code in it that says "Licensed to the
> Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" as its header.  I made the statement
> "that doesn't look right" and the response received (from an eclipse
> representative) was that it was an implicit licensing of the work under the
> Apache License, v2.  That doesn't sound quite right to me, but the
> statement hat it's an implicit license grant makes more sense.
> Helps  a lot to include the actual text btw and not just a reference.
> ie) Whether it was the Licensed to text, or the full Apache source header.
> Also if it's about a specific issue, talking about the specific issue is
> better than generics :) Sounds like the issue has been resolved.

More or less, resolved.  For what its worth, it was verbatim what is
treated as the normal ASF code header.

 * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
 * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
 * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
 * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
 * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.

> Hen

View raw message