On 28 July 2011 16:18, Milos Kleint <mkle...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Stephen Connolly > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> 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] > > it seems unlikely. The same sort of agreement is signed by everyone > contributing to netbeans and sun changed the license once or twice as > well. same with eclipse I think. >
The eclipse one grants the contributor write access in return for certain grants of rights to eclipse. same for sun and netbeans, but the sonatype cla that I found via google: http://www.sonatype.org/SonatypeCLA.pdf does not give commit access and specifically states that sonatype may never use the submitted patches... that is why I think it is one-sided... and that is where I have the question. If I am looking at the wrong CLA, fair enough > >> >>>> 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? >>> > > the point if CLA is not to have to hunt to all past contributors when > changing license AFAIK. > > Milos > > >> >> 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 >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
