On 16 February 2012 12:35, Patrick Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:25, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > [ASIDE many people in the ASF argue that the contribution under the >> > Apache License is sufficient, this is not the forum for this >> > discussion, current policy is that an ICLA is required - the forum to >> > seek policy change is [email protected]] >> >> Citation needed. >> > > Ross also referenced, but did not cite "one mail back in December indicated > that significant IP would be involved". Please supply a link to the email > in the mail archives, assuming it was on one of our lists (that seemed to > be implied).
"I assume the RIM folks intend on contributing significant IP they own to Apache (ie, code they have written)." http://markmail.org/message/aaqwg2motedreszq However, as noted in my mails and corrected by Jukka, if these contributions are coming through git pull requests it's not an issue. There was another situation in which contributions from would be gated through a single individual. In this case the legal situation is hazy at best, the social implications I discussed in my mail are relevant (Jukka pointed this out at the time). >> The current policy as described in [1] explicitly does *not* require >> an ICLA for all contributions. ... > > > So, count me as confused by Ross's note, as my understanding of the > situation is the same as Jukka's. I withdraw the "significant IP" part. Jukka is correct. I remain concerned about the possibility of circumventing the contribution process - but recognise this is only a possibility at this stage based on incomplete information. Hence my original mail contained "If nobody is contributing code that is not coming in through an active contribution process there is nothing to worry about and I'm just blowing hot air." > I'm happy to see that there are different opinions here, since the whole > 3rd party code usage thing is ... confusing. Welcome to Apache, where even the mentors get it wrong in public ;-) The reason for this is incomplete documentation (even contradictory documentation) and different practices in different projects. > If me and Jukka are wrong, and Ross is right, then I've broken the rules by > including a slew of npm modules, and the WebKit Web Inspector source, in > weinre's git repo at Apache. The top-level LICENSE file for weinre <1> > (master branch) lists all the 3rd party code that weinre pulls > (recursively). If the code is under a compatible licence and you have taken any steps necessary to identify their use (NOTICE file) this is nothing to worry about. The issue I raise is only for code contributed to the ASF (i.e. carries a Copyright ASF notice). I've not looked at this specific case yet, but will do so if you want me to review it (I'll certainly review it before release). Ross
