incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow
Date Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:17:47 GMT
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL
>> would be weaker or stronger than contributions under this RLA?
> Legally they are most likely much the same - I think the questions you
> ask implies something
> which should be the question to ask....
> -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <-
> From precedence and from what I know it is not.

Actually, no, that doesn't follow from my question.

My question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests
an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is
offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the
spec committee?  If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficient to
continue to accept contributions from ASF committers who have signed a CLA
to the effect that everything they offer is covered.

This is slightly distinct from a non-committer without a CLA which is also
contributing under the ASL, but without quite as strong a paper trail that
they contributed knowingly under that license.

> As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating specifications,
> there will be by definition some separation between code and spec processes

This would generally be true even if they were both under the ASF umbrella,
I don't necessarily think they have to be one.  E.g. even if the spec
committee were an ASF committee, they would answer to all implementors, not
only one implementation by the ASF...

> and I would like to work with the ASF to
> try improve this. The way the group is setup I believe the ASF can have
> a strong influence while
> we are in incubator, and the ASF can "keep" us in incubator until the
> spec meets ASF standards as
> Brian said before we went to vote. Thus being in incubator seems the
> perfect place to work this.

Sure, that sounds like a good thing, although it still doesn't go to the

 * project contributors must all sign two agreements?
 * the spec committee is or isn't sufficently protected by the ASL terms?

> I think this is one of the options we can look at to have any member of
> the project provide feedback to the spec working group - however it seems
> presumptuous to use the ASL or work out details like this before we are
> accepted in incubator.

Well the ASL is the binding license of ASF work, so if that's a presumptuous
assertion, perhaps this project belongs elsewhere?

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

View raw message