incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: Software Grants for GitHub Projects...
Date Sun, 01 Feb 2015 20:19:53 GMT
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.

> John
>> -Alex
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message