On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/ > release. > Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our source code repositories, svn or git. Quoting http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 ... 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. No, you may not modify the sources or derive those that reside within version control of the ASF, until and upon the time when the project has blessed that project as a release. Patches to others' contributions to source code control are not within the scope of this imaginary non-license application. 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. No, you may absolutely not test the code that has been committed to source control without a patent license, which you do not have, until that time when the ASF blesses the work and calls it a release. 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form None of that, it's all straight out, none of it applies to your work at the ASF until the release is blessed. That includes passing off a patched fork of a security fix to a reporter who claimed there was a defect in the earlier release. 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 Except when it isn't in Ross's and our VP Legal's own minds... 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file. Which wasn't a right in the first place, so no change here under any interpretation... 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License. Except that perhaps the ASF is liable, under our VP Legal's interpretation, for works which do reside in source control and were not, in fact, released to the general public? [Ad nauseam 8. and 9.] Let's just not go this direction, because it is plainly false. Jim, it would truly be helpful if you spoke up for or in contradiction to your earlier statements, here... Cheers, Bill
