Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CD8200BEC for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 04:40:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 815E4160B2E; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:40:07 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 80966160B19 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 04:40:06 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 42346 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2016 03:40:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 42336 invoked by uid 99); 15 Dec 2016 03:40:05 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:40:05 +0000 Received: from mail-yw0-f181.google.com (mail-yw0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 3F8851A02E6 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id i145so7103866ywg.2 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:40:05 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01e/c6sYtGTmDbEF9BsmBEbRcx572tWumbPWs+iKB7M17wV5YQVmGIbisYnFsv4/ytiM1Ye/WEDviZO7g== X-Received: by 10.13.240.65 with SMTP id z62mr145037ywe.140.1481773203717; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:40:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4796d41b-ff6b-13d1-bd88-fd2e3a1f4abb@shanecurcuru.org> In-Reply-To: <4796d41b-ff6b-13d1-bd88-fd2e3a1f4abb@shanecurcuru.org> From: "John D. Ament" Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:39:52 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: What does "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" mean? To: legal-discuss@apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c034e607214000543aa35ae archived-at: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:40:07 -0000 --94eb2c034e607214000543aa35ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Shane, On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:21 PM Shane Curcuru 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. > > - Shane > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM Roman Shaposhnik > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, John D. Ament > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > So I'm wondering based on some questions being asked around in > > some forums, > > > not all within the ASF, what is the legal statement meant to > > represent? Is > > > it the ownership of code, that's how I've understood it. > > > > My understanding is that it is a very basic legal tool (at least in > > US) to transfer > > the rights for a copyrighted piece of intellectual property to ASF. > > The copyright > > itself remains with the original owner, but ASF gets the right > > (license) to be free > > to do with that IP however it pleases (which includes potential > > re-licensing and > > it fact happened at least once going from ALv1 -> ALv2). > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org > > > > > > > -- > > - 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 > > --94eb2c034e607214000543aa35ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.=C2=A0 So if an arbitrary github repo= includes
> (their own developed source code) that includes this clause, they are<= br class=3D"gmail_msg"> > technically granting the ASF a license to use that code, right?

Legally?=C2=A0 Who knows.=C2=A0 I'd bet almost all lawyers would say no= , or at
least not without knowing more about the specific code you're talking about.=C2=A0 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 cod= e
in that file is the one who authorized that statement to be put there,
right?)

ASF policy wise?=C2=A0 Apache projects should generally only accept willing= ly
and specifically given contributions.=C2=A0 So just because someone happene= d
to slap that on their github repo doesn't mean we should just grab it.<= br class=3D"gmail_msg">
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.=C2=A0 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:

=C2=A0 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... ha= s a bunch of code in it that says "Licensed to the Apache Software Fou= ndation (ASF)" as its header.=C2=A0 I made the statement "that do= esn't look right" and the response received (from an eclipse repre= sentative) was that it was an implicit licensing of the work under the Apac= he License, v2.=C2=A0 That doesn't sound quite right to me, but the sta= tement hat it's an implicit license grant makes more sense.
= =C2=A0

- Shane
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhn= ik.org
> <mailto:roman@shaposhnik.org>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM, John D. Ament
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<johndament@apache.org <mailto:j= ohndament@apache.org>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Hi,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> So I'm wondering based on some questions b= eing asked around in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0some forums,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> not all within the ASF, what is the legal stat= ement meant to
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0represent?=C2=A0 Is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> it the ownership of code, that's how I'= ;ve understood it.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0My understanding is that it is a very basic legal t= ool (at least in
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0US) to transfer
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0the rights for a copyrighted piece of intellectual = property to ASF.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0The copyright
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0itself remains with the original owner, but ASF get= s the right
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0(license) to be free
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to do with that IP however it pleases (which includ= es potential
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0re-licensing and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0it fact happened at least once going from ALv1 ->= ; ALv2).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Roman.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0---------------------------------------------------= ------------------
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-di= scuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:legal-discuss-unsubsc= ribe@apache.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0For additional commands, e-mail: legal-= discuss-help@apache.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.or= g>
>


--

- Shane
=C2=A0 https://www.apache.org/f= oundation/marks/resources

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache= .org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<= /a>

--94eb2c034e607214000543aa35ae--