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 21:19:37 GMT
Matt, you're saying the same thing, except it's not one individual but 
two [1] (spmallette + okram) , who own the vast majority of the IP. They 
also claim to be in the possession of CLAs from the other contributors.

The problem was not insufficient data to substantiate claims, but TMI. 
Secretary@ pushed back for that clear reason, the proposal for 
resubmission addressed that. If secretary@ will have additional concerns 
(including forwarding to legal@), we'll address them as they come.



On 02/02/2015 09:53 AM, Matt Franklin wrote:
> On Mon Feb 02 2015 at 8:09:43 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>> 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" <>
>>>>>> 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
>> 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
>>>>>> the terms of the license. The license has very specific language:
>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>> are granting the code to the Foundation.
>>>>>> That doesn't help with the initial import of a project from github
>>>>>> 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.
> My understanding is that the licensor must be able to own the copyright,
> thus a legal entity (company or individual).
> IMO, we should either take the acceptance of Tinkerpop as a Licensor to
> legal@ or we just ask anyone who has contributed signifiant IP to sign an
> ICLA with new copyright assignment.
>> IANAL, $0.02,
>> Hadrian
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message