www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>
Subject Re: MXNet: "Copyright Contributors"
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:22:33 GMT
Alex: Ignoring the question of whether such an agreement could be
reassigned to Apache; no there wasn't :)

Craig: I would agree with you on the copyright statement if it included
authors' names. As it is, I'm tempted to have every file contain Copyright
Contributors as it's as true for Apache as it is for pre-Apache; it's a
nonsensical statement.  (Leaving the SGA/CLA discussion for the other


On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>

> Was there any sort of contributors agreement signed by folks before
> committing code to wherever the code lived before Apache?
> -Alex
> From: Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Monday, October 2, 2017 at 3:34 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: MXNet: "Copyright Contributors"
> Hi Henri,
> This is indeed a tricky situation.
> One of Apache's main operating principles is that downstream consumers can
> rest assured that Apache has done due diligence to establish provenance for
> the code base. In this case, establishing provenance for each line of code
> appears to be difficult.
> But we have to try. It seems that the podling committers need to find out
> the long list of contributors and what they contributed. The git history
> should be sufficient for that, including all pull requests.
> If we have "trivial" contributions that would not affect the viability of
> the project if the contributor subsequently decided that they wanted to
> withdraw their consent to use them, I'm ok with including those
> contributions.
> But we should have clear IP grant (via either SGA or ICLA) from everyone
> who contributed major functionality to the project before it arrived here.
> Finally, if we have significant code whose authorship is questionable, we
> should not change the header from "Copyright (c) 2015 by *Contributors*"
> to the Apache header, since we have no legal basis for the Apache header.
> If the code is under the Apache license, we can distribute that code under
> the terms of the license including NOTICE requirements. This is the least
> desirable path.
> Craig
> On Oct 1, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> Another podling question.
> The MXNet code previously stated:
>   Copyright (c) 2015 by
> *Contributors *
> This is pretty vague and begs the question of what to put in MXNet source
> headers going forth. It might even perhaps be a tautology; something is
> always copyright to its contributors (where contributors is open source
> speak for authors).
> Per the previous email, it's likely that not all contributors will have
> signed an ICLA with Apache. Do we keep that one liner in every file, do we
> put something in the NOTICE along the lines of:
> "MXNet was previously published at https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fdmlc%2Fmxnet&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf97cc716fea2452ace4e08d509e5d0ab%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425805041175506&sdata=haVjB7wYqatKsL7OFhmNWRby8OCJgyyXSSFe6fpmYIw%3D&reserved=0>
> and was Copyright (c) 2015 by *Contributors"*
> Or put that in every source file.
> It's a curious question imo. The current Apache source header says:
> "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."
> Where contributor license agreements include ICLAs, CCLAs, Software Grants
> and Clause 5 of the Apache License 2.0; at least in so far as contributed
> directly to Apache. It also possibly includes ICLAs/CCLAs signed with third
> parties who then signed a Software Grant, and arguably Clause 5 of the
> Apache License 2.0 to those third parties. MXNet is fun (aka normal for
> most open source projects) in that it's unclear who that third party would
> have been; presumably the individual who created the dmlc GitHub
> organization as there is no legal entity there.
> All of which is to show that I've thought about this a bit, with no
> perfect answer. We are not going to get an ICLA from every one of the
> "Contributors". We could leave that generic and confusing text in each
> source file, but I feel this is an allowable case for moving that copyright
> statement into the NOTICE per my proposed text of:
> "MXNet was previously published at https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fdmlc%2Fmxnet&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf97cc716fea2452ace4e08d509e5d0ab%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425805041175506&sdata=haVjB7wYqatKsL7OFhmNWRby8OCJgyyXSSFe6fpmYIw%3D&reserved=0>
> and was Copyright (c) 2015 by
> *Contributors" *
> Do folk on the Legal list feel this is sane, or that I'm barking mad? :)
> Thanks,
> Hen
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdb.apache.org%2Fjdo&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf97cc716fea2452ace4e08d509e5d0ab%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425805041175506&sdata=kTwr6cY3Z1TxxvtOqNhItfO4FTQW7%2BSOtxyXbspf3%2BU%3D&reserved=0>

View raw message