Not sure what version you're reading but we specifically changed so that said author retains copyright and Sonatype is granted a perpetual license. Changed specifically when Brett brought it up, we brought it in line with what Apache and Eclipse do.
On Jul 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On 28 July 2011 16:03, John Casey <jdca...@commonjava.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 7/28/11 10:43 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>> >>>> The reason why no one committed to Aether beside yourself is partly that >>>> it requires to sign some CLA which only unilaterally grants rights (as we >>>> can certainly see now!). >>> >>> Have you read the Sonatype CLA? The contributor keeps retains copyright > > [OT] > I've just read it now... it seems entirely one-sided.... it is all > Contributor grants rights to Sonatype, but it seems to me that there > is nothing return... IANAL, but AFAIK such one-sided contracts can > become null and void... certainly I have been advised that in Ireland > a 1-sided contract cannot be made to stand up in court... I do hope > for Sonatype's sake that you have the contract rooted in a > jurisdiction that permits 1-sided contracts. > [/OT] > >>> and Sonatype is granted the license. Much the same way the Apache or Eclipse >>> CLAs work. We changed that a long time ago when Brett pointed it out. >>> Additionally Hervé and Kristian signed the CLA. It's not just Sonatype >>> employees. >> >> So you had to get approval from all contributors before switching to >> EPl-only? >> > > I'm curious to hear your answer to this > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl ---------------------------------------------------------
