incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Software Grants for GitHub Projects...
Date Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:53:14 GMT
On Mon Feb 02 2015 at 8:09:43 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 02/01/2015 03:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:12 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 1:05:10 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/31/15, 9:09 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt Franklin
> >>>> <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:22:15 AM Benson Margulies
> >>>>> <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:55 AM, James Carman
> >>>>>> <james@carmanconsulting.com> 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.
>

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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message