On 09/14/2017 10:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> Apologies for the late reply.  I had this on my todo for last week, thought
> I responded, but didn't.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> I've thoroughly gone through the Daffodil codebase and documented all
>> the potential code ownership issues that I think need to be resolved
>> before we can donate the code to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF).
>> My findings are below.
>>
>> 1) The majority of the code is copyright NCSA, Tresys, or Mike Beckerle.
>> The contributors from NCSA and some from Tresys now work at different
>> companies and so contacting all of them may be difficult. We have
>> contacted representatives for these entities and are working to get SGAs
>> from NCSA, Tresys, and Mike Beckerle in place. We believe these three
>> SGAs should cover contributions made by past employees.
>>
> 
> There's two types of open source.  For the situation you're describing, it
> makes sense to wait on SGAs since the copyright owners are companies not
> individuals (I think Mike has already signed off). (the other type is when
> the individuals retain the IP, in which case the ICLA is preferred but only
> required if the copyright says something like "Contributors to <Project>")
> 
> 
>>
>> 2) Some contributions came from other entities that we no longer have
>> contact with. Based on the git log, this includes:
>>
>> - Jeffrey Jacobs (Navy Research Lab)
>> - Stephanie Huber (Air Force Research Lab)
>> - Alonza Mumford (Department of Defense)
>> - Jonathan Cranford (MITRE)
>> - Jacob Baker (Booze Allen Hamilton)
>>
>> Of this list, the first three are federal government entities. Our
>> understanding is that federal government contributions are Public
>> Domain, and so perhaps we do not need an SGA for these contributions?
>> This needs to be confirmed.
>>
> 
> I forget the rules here.  You're right that its public domain, but there
> are some nuances with then including it in a grant.  I'd actually recommend
> asking the question on legal-discuss list and get their opinion.  Our
> present VP Legal is actually Chief Architect for NASA JPL so he should be
> pretty familiar with the situation.
> 
> 
>>
>> We have looked at the patches contributed from the non-government
>> entities (Jonathan Cranford and Jacob Baker), and have confirmed that
>> their changes have since been replaced as Daffodil has evolved, so we do
>> not believe an SGA is necessary for their contributions.
>>
>> 3) A handful of tests and schema files were given to us from IBM and
>> include an IBM copyright. The license for these files is unknown. We are
>> working with IBM to get an SGA for these contributions.
>>
>> 4) The tests in item 3 include example snippets taken out of the DFDL
>> specification, which are labeled as copyright Global Gird Forum (now
>> renamed to the Open Grid Forum (OGF)). Regarding the ownership of these
>> files, the OGF has stated:
>>
>>   In general OGF takes the position that it does not copyright or
>>   license software, and that the examples used in specifications are
>>   just that, examples of how to use the specification rather than
>>   separately copyrighted code snippets.
>>
>> The full copyright notice regarding the contents of OGF documents is at:
>>
>>   https://www.ogf.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/about/copyright
>>
>> The copyright is copied at the end of this email for reference [1]. To
>> me, this means we do not need an SGA, but may need to include the
>> copyright notice from the link.
>>
>>
> 
> Agreed, more likely than not we would place that in our LICENSE file.  We
> can confirm this on legal when we're ready to do a release.
> 
> 
> 
>> 5) We have copied code from the Scala library into Daffodil. The license
>> is 3-clause BSD and should not cause any issues, aside from needing to
>> include the license.
>>
> 
> Agreed.  Just make sure none of the grants indicate this code is included.
> Same for the next.
> 
> 
>>
>> 6) We have copied code from the Passera library into Daffodil. The
>> license is 3-clause BSD and should not cause any issues, aside from
>> needing to include the license.
>>
>> We additionally have dependencies on other libraries, but none of their
>> code is included in the Daffodil source. We believe they are all
>> compatible with the Apache v2 license, including Apache v2, BSD, MIT,
>> and ICU.
>>
> 
> Dependencies are generally not an issue, unless they're GPL.  Even LGPL has
> some interesting ways to work around.
> 
> 
>>
>> We are also working on getting a CCLA from Tresys, since all initial
>> committers are employed by Tresys.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>> [1] Open Grid Forum Full Copyright Notice:
>>
>> * Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (insert applicable years). Some Rights
>>   Reserved. *
>>
>> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
>> others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
>> assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
>> distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
>> provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
>> as references to the derived portions on all such copies and derivative
>> works. The published OGF document from which such works are derived,
>> however, may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the
>> copyright notice or references to the OGF or other organizations, except
>> as needed for the purpose of developing new or updated OGF documents in
>> conformance with the procedures defined in the OGF Document Process, or
>> as required to translate it into languages other than English. OGF, with
>> the approval of its board, may remove this restriction for inclusion of
>> OGF document content for the purpose of producing standards in
>> cooperation with other international standards bodies.
>>
>> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
>> revoked by the OGF or its successors or assignees.
>>
>>
> 

Thanks for the answers John. Sounds like we're on the right track. For
reference, I've started a thread on legal-discuss for further
clarifications here:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bea1471ba0b98a14c87d066e83faf377e6e537ed02ee9dc6b583569@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E

- Steve

Reply via email to