[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       incubator-general
Subject:    RE: What to do with FTPServer and AltRMI
From:       "Cliff Schmidt" <cliff () bea ! com>
Date:       2004-11-04 2:54:38
Message-ID: 4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C8810181F7F7 () usseex01 ! amer ! bea ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Niclas Hedhman wrote on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:36 AM:

> On Thursday 04 November 2004 02:11, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
>>> What about code that was contributed during Incubation?
>> 
>> They would have to obtain a license from the ASF to use that code,
>> or, in alternative, a license from each invididual contributor.
>> Since that license comes along with the files, if they like that
>> license, they are set.
> 
> In fact, the ASL/CLA combo is a bit ambigous on these points as well,
> since it basically says;
> 1. The Copyright *owner* of any work is the producer of the Original
> Work. 
> 2. Any contributor agrees that each and every part of contribution to
> the Original Work, becomes part of the Original Work.
> 
> = I don't own my patches.

Not true.  There's no document stating that the ownership of 
contributions are ever transferred; they are only licensed so that
the contribution can be included within an Apache product.  Whether 
you are a committer or other contributor, you continue to own your
intellectual property.

> The ambiguities arises from 'what scope' is Original Work. Is it a
> single file? Is it more or is it less?

It is whatever you submit, whether that is a file, a set of files, or
a single patch to a file.

> Assuming it is a single file, in Aaron's example the JExample team
> could easily look at which files they originally contributed into the
> Incubator, and extract them back out and re-license without any
> additional assignments from other contributors.

yes, assuming they owned the copyright as the original creators of
the work (and without claims from some employer).

> If an entire project is considered Original Work (as is the case in
> Sun's licensing, which may or may not be relevant), then the entire
> project is could be re-licensed.

The 'entire project' would be considered as a collective work owned
by the ASF.  This doesn't mean the ASF owns the individual 
contributions, just the copyright on the collection.  The individual
contributors definitely do not have the right to re-license the entire
project, unless they owned every piece of it.

> If it is 'less-than-a-file', it would be interesting to see how such
> definition is made.

It is defined by the patch that is checked-in by a committer or 
contributed from someone else.  It is defined in the Apache License
as: 
      "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
      the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
      to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
      submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
      or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
      the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
      means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
      to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
      communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
      and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
      Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
      excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
      designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."

> To make the case even more complicated, since the CLA covers the (2.)
> above, patches arriving from non-ASF committers are also "in limbo",
> since such contributor could say "I only contributed because it was
> ASL", and so on. 

Since only committers are required to sign the CLA, contributions from
non-committers are covered by the Apache License v 2.0, which they must
accept if they exercise any of the rights granted in that license.  So,
the paragraph quoted above applies to them as well.  

> And OTOH, although right should be right, I doubt it would ever be
> tried in court, and would I care if someone used a few hundred lines
> of my code without giving me credit or licensing it as GPL which I
> hate?? I wouldn't. Someone else with bigger ego than me maybe.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Niclas

Cliff

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]