incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: Software Grants for GitHub Projects...
Date Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:08:13 GMT

On 02/01/2015 03:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:12 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:
>> On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 1:05:10 AM Alex Harui <> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/15, 9:09 AM, "Benson Margulies" <> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt Franklin
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:22:15 AM Benson Margulies
>>>>> <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:55 AM, James Carman
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are there guidelines for these "usual considerations"?
>>>>>> For all the small stuff, the safe path is to get an ICLA from each
>>>>>> committer, and an email message positively stating an intent to donate
>>>>>> the code.
>>>>> Yes, this is the safest approach; but, may not be necessary for changes
>>>>> that do not represent significant IP.  For instance, our projects accept
>>>>> minor contributions through JIRA, without an ICLA.
>>>> There's a critical distinction here. Once you have released a product
>>>> under the Apache license, people can contribute new things to it under
>>>> the terms of the license. The license has very specific language: if
>>>> you take code from us, and then send us a contribution (email, JIRA,
>>>> github PR, carrier pigeon) that is a derivative of what you took, you
>>>> are granting the code to the Foundation.
>>>> That doesn't help with the initial import of a project from github or
>>>> bitbucket or Jupiter or Mars; none of those contributions met the
>>>> criteria in the license of sending a contribution back to the
>>>> Foundation, because the code wasn't here in the first place.
>>> Just curious, what if the code was under AL but not at Apache?
>> The license is pretty clear about this:
>> *5. Submission of Contributions*. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
>> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You
>> to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License,
>> without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above,
>> nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license
>> agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
>> So basically, anything you contribute back is assumed to be under the
>> Apache license, unless you (the author) say otherwise or there's some other
>> license in play (The apache license doesn't supersede other licenses). Of
>> course you should consult with legal counsel before making any
>> contributions though.  I think to Benson's point, The ASF requires that any
>> incoming code was put in under that license agreement or there's a SGA
>> stating the prior license can be converted.
> Note the phrase, "intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by
> You _to the Licensor_". Who is the licensor for a body of work not at
> Apache? The process has to start with a clear ownership of copyright
> -- the licensor. The purpose of the SGA, I think, is to get a clear
> answer to that question. You might be able to argue that a particular
> github repo is made up of an initial work with a single owner, and
> then contributions to it under the terms of the AL. In which case,
> you'd just need an SGA from that original single owner. IANAL.
My understanding is that the Licensor is whomever claims to be 'it'. As 
long ans the claimant produces documentation to substantiate the claim 
that we can accept, we should be good. I don't see a need/requirement 
for the Licensor to necessarily be a legal organization. That is if it's 
not one single owner but a small group of contributors/owners, that 
should be ok too.

IANAL, $0.02,

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message