Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Chris Darroch wrote: >> >> One key question I have (jumping ahead a little) is whether >> everyone who has contributed a patch to the project needs to contacted >> and a signed contributor agreement recovered from them. If not, then I >> would think that we'd just need a CLA from Pan Qingfeng to proceed >> (and perhaps, in that case, we could skip the incubator stage, as >> Apache ZooKeeper recently did). >> >> If we do need CLAs from all patch contributors, that might take >> more time. Fortunately, there's a good change log for the project >> with names and email addresses; it includes some of the usual suspects >> (like Paul Querna and myself) but also a number of other folks we'd need >> to track down. >> > > Since the orig code is GPL, then when people submitted the patches, > the expectation is that they would also be GPL. As such, for us > to be able to fold in the code, we would need iCLAs from everyone > who submitted a patch allowing us to relicense their bits as AL instead > of GPL... similar to what we needed to do when SpamAssassin come on board.
Is it? If the *original* code dates to Open Market's implementation, we need to use some caution. The original license was very restrictive. The current mod_fastcgi license is much less restrictive; "Open Market permits you to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license this Software and the Documentation for any purpose, provided that existing copyright notices are retained in all copies and that this notice is included verbatim in any distributions. No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses. Modifications to this Software and Documentation may be copyrighted by their authors and need not follow the licensing terms described here. If modifications to this Software and Documentation have new licensing terms, the new terms must be clearly indicated on the first page of each file where they apply." http://www.fastcgi.com/drupal/node/6?q=node/14 At one point, authorized uses was much narrower, meaning that if the code was in svn, and re-purposed elsewhere, it was not licensed. If this is based on the original mod_fastcgi license, perhaps incorporating the modern, appropriately licensed flavor and then layering the mod_fcgid improvements on top of that would make the most sense?
