David I'd like to give one more try at seeing if we can set something up WITH- IN the Apache OFBiz Project for sandboxed developments and developers.
Chris seems to be really working to create something that he, I and probably others feel is really needed. These legal challenges he is facing in trying to create something that will help and can easily be accpeted into the Apache OFBiz project seem needless. Couldn't we add a sandbox directory somewhere in the project where non- trunk approved contributors could collaborate on secondary projects. I believe I'm correct in thinking that svn access to a single directory would be relatively easy to administer, and the developments in that structure would automatically pass all Apache legal requirements. Thanks Daniel On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 20:47 -0700, David E. Jones wrote: > Chris, > > Hopefully the resource J. Aaron linked to answers your question about > copyrights. Note that in that same area of the site there are various > pages with helpful related information. > > The comments from Leo Simmons on the incubator mailing list were > helpful too. > > As I understand it however the intellectual property is created it is > the responsibility of the PMC to review the intellectual property > issues and incorporate the code into the open source project. That's > the only way it gets in. This may sound a little bit heavy handed, > but that is how the organization is setup. > > As Leo mentioned there may be scenarios that are not well met by this > structure, and yes without working directly with a committer on an > effort collaboration through the SVN repo of the project is more > difficult, but I still highly recommend it. There are major > advantages to working on things through the resources of the project > rather than doing things on your own and then trying to work it into > the project. > > I have updated the Contributors Best Practices page on docs.ofbiz.org > about this, and I highly recommend reading it, for anyone and > everyone who is working with OFBiz. I made a few changes to make > certain things more clear, but most of the issues discussed in this > and other threads recently were actually already addressed on that > page. Here is a link to it: > > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/r > > -David > > > On Jan 14, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > > > David, > > > > Let me know at which point I become a pain in my > > inquiry about this. It's really not my intention. I'm > > still looking for a model that I can use to offer > > contributions with the least amount of administrative > > work necessary from the sandbox to the ASF. Copying > > the manner that OFBiz is able to place the copyright > > ASF placard on every file without notice of other > > copyright holders in that file would seem the path of > > least resistance. I'm trying to find the legal theory > > being used as my understanding is that there is only a > > license grant being offered from contributors and not > > copyright assignment with the Apache License v2. > > > > If I'm able to make a valid claim to copyright and > > exclude other holders, then I'm able to appropriately > > grant license to the ASF. > > > > If the ASF doesn't hold copyright in it's entirety, > > then I would think this would need to be clarified > > somewhere inside the project(ie LICENSE or NOTICE > > files). Even failing that need, the only thing I'm > > finding on apache.org is the intent to gain copyright > > ownership approved in past board minutes but never an > > actual vehicle to attain copyright ownership. > > ie used the google search > > site:www.apache.org copyright assignment > > > > Can you point me to a definitive place for this > > answer? > > > > TIA, > > Chris > > > > --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Chris, > >> > >> Do you mean the NOTICE and LICENSE files in OFBiz? > >> You'll only find > >> information on libraries included and their > >> corresponding licenses in > >> those files. > >> > >> I recommend looking on the apache.org site for > >> general information > >> about the ASF and its policies. > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > >> > >>> David, > >>> Can you point me to where the copyright policy > >>> addresses the contributors as being the copyright > >>> holders for the OFBiz code instead of ASF? > >> <inquiring > >>> tone, not skepticism> I'm not seeing them in > >> NOTICE > >>> or LICENSE, but they are rather long :-) > >>> > >>> TIA, > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> --- "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Chris, > >>>> > >>>> Have you read the ASF licensing and copyright > >> policy > >>>> documents? They > >>>> address this, and in general this sort of thing > >> in > >>>> pretty good detail. > >>>> > >>>> Don't worry, you're not the first to notice this. > >>>> > >>>> As for copyright statements in other projects: > >> there > >>>> are certain > >>>> cases where the files are not 100% licensed > >> through > >>>> the ASF, but are > >>>> rather a combination of third party code and code > >>>> developer for/ > >>>> through the ASF. Also not that while it is the > >>>> responsibility of > >>>> committers to monitor this sort of thing in > >> patches > >>>> and their own > >>>> work, we do sometimes make mistakes. In general > >> for > >>>> the OFBiz code it > >>>> has been thoroughly reviewed and such things well > >>>> vetted through the > >>>> incubation process. > >>>> > >>>> -David > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Chris Howe wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> While searching for more answers on how to make > >>>> the > >>>>> ofbiz-sandbox ASF friendly (both legally and ASF > >>>>> administrative safe guard wise), I came across a > >>>>> distinction between contributions to the Free > >>>> Software > >>>>> Foundation (FSF) and contributions to the ASF > >> that > >>>> I > >>>>> think may have been inadequately addressed in > >>>> OFBiz. > >>>>> IANAL. > >>>>> > >>>>> Contributions to FSF require a copyright > >>>> assignment, > >>>>> while contributions to ASF generally, simply > >> grant > >>>>> license of use, modification, etc. This > >>>> distinction > >>>>> allows FSF software to carry the copyright > >> notice > >>>>> "Copyright YYYY The Free Software Foundation" by > >>>>> itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> I looked at a couple of the other ASF TLPs and > >>>> noticed > >>>>> they were either missing a copyright notice in > >>>>> individual files or in the case of Geronimo, had > >>>> the > >>>>> following: > >>>>> > >>>>> * Copyright 2004, 2005 The Apache Software > >>>> Foundation > >>>>> or its licensors, as applicable. > >>>>> > >>>>> I only looked at a couple files, so this is no > >>>> where > >>>>> near a comprehensive search. As it is now, > >> nearly > >>>>> every file in OFBiz says: > >>>>> > >>>>> Copyright 2001-2006 The Apache Software > >>>> Foundation > >>>>> > >>>>> Which perhaps in and of itself is a copyright > >>>>> violation. One for the beginning year (it may be > >>>>> materially false as I wouldn't think a copyright > >>>> can > >>>>> be assigned retroactively) and two for the > >>>> exclusion > >>>>> of those who may actually have the copyright > >> (the > >>>>> author, etc). To my knowledge, there was no > >>>> request > >>>>> to the community for copyright assignment. > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope no one construes this as causing a fuss > >> or > >>>> as a > >>>>> distraction. One of the reasons for the move to > >>>> the > >>>>> ASF for the project, as I understood it, was a > >>>>> proactive step to avoid legal hassles. I just > >>>> want us > >>>>> to take advantage of that benefit and protect > >> all > >>>> of > >>>>> our hard work. > >>>>> > >>>>> TIA for your feedback, > >>>>> Chris > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >
