--- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris, > > Ugh. Remind me never to take up law. (Yeah, I know, I'll be cannon > fodder for big boys with lawyers.) > > > This structure, however does not protect the contributor (you) of > a > > joint work. > > Ok. So if I stole someone else's private work and contributed it to a > committer who commits this > stolen work to ASF, then I'm liable for the theft, and ASF and the > committer are not liable. >
ASF will need to remove the offending code from distribution. > That'll also mean I better make sure that the contributions put into > my private sandbox are not > stolen as well. I'll just follow ASF's "license grant" process, so I > won't be liable for any > thefts committed by contributors in my sandbox team. > That may not be sufficient. The ASF does quite a bit more than the CLA and license grant to protect itself. > > The only way as I see around this is to have a specific agreement > > amongst all joint owners allowing for its distribution under > Apache > > 2. > > Alright. So I just need to make sure all those committing to my > ragtag sandbox assigns rights to > ASF to distribute their contributions under Apache 2. > AFAIK The only way you can grant a license to the ASF is if you make your contribution directly to the ASF. If they make their contribution to you, they are granting you a license not Apache. However, since their contribution is intended to be inseparable from your contribution, it is now a joint work absent some sort of agreement. This is the point where it gets cloudy and no definitive answer has been offered. Still not a pretty pickle and thus my ranting for a sandbox that is available to the community but owned by ASF. > > Not a pretty pickle. > > No, it's not pretty to software vendors, OFBiz consultants needing > money for a living, etc. But > that's not my concern. I leave that to businessmen. > > > Does this make my understanding of the scenario clear? > > Quite a bit clearer. Thanks. > > Jonathon > > Chris Howe wrote: > > IMO, this is certainly not a non-issue, it's the issue I've been > trying > > to get a definitive answer to for the last few weeks and everyone > wants > > to simply ignore it and act like we're a bunch of hippies. It's > fun > > being a hippie until some large corporation comes by and carts your > > commune off their land. Then you're not a hippie, you're just > > homeless. > > > > I've changed my stance slightly contemplating Jonathon's questions. > I > > think this explanation is more correct, consistent and also easier > to > > follow. But again IANAL. > > Comments inline. > > > > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> David (Jones), Tim, Chris, > >> > >> Sorry, I know this thread isn't about legal issues with OFBiz. But > >> Chris often has a way of > >> spotting some oft-missed angle, and I'm concerned about a > particular > >> angle now. Though I'm also > >> often lost in his long complex explanations, please forgive me if > I > >> feel scared/concerned about > >> some issues mentioned. Need just a bit of advice here. > >> > >> I'm looking at some excertps from Chris' "findlaw" URL. Please > note > >> those words between **. > >> > >> "When the copyright... *provided that the use does not destroy the > >> value of the > >> work* ..." > >> > >> I understand that the ASF license is like the MIT license, so the > >> open sourced codes can be packed > >> into a commercial package (much like the LGPL?). > >> > > > > AFAIK, correct. > > > >> How do I publish codes (assuming I do have a semi-public SVN > shared > >> between a few friends) without > >> damaging that license? > >> > > > > The license is fine. The owner of a copyright can write as many > > nonexclusive licenses as he/she/it/they wish. However, I don't > believe > > a joint owner can grant the Apache 2 license to anyone without > greatly > > diminishes the financial value of the work itself. This is further > > compounded by granting the Apache 2 license to the ASF as one of > their > > main functions is to distribute that work freely to anyone who > points a > > browser or other client software in their direction. > > > >> "According to the Copyright Act... *a work prepared by two or more > >> authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into > >> inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole*." > >> > >> What if I explicitly mention that I INTEND to merge my private > >> sandbox into OFBiz as a collection > >> of "interdependent parts of a unitary whole". Will that mean the > >> OFBiz core team and my own ragtag > >> team become a partnership? > > > > No. This I believe is the trick of the contributor license > agreement. > > Your "patch" is a complete work and you are granting license to > anyone > > who has access to JIRA the Apache 2 license. The committers of > OFBiz > > as individuals accept your complete work and make a contribution to > the > > ASF project under the terms of the CLA. The only interaction with > the > > ASF is between the committer and the ASF, not you. This, I believe > > protects the ASF to only being subject to cease and desist orders > in > > the event of infringement. This structure should also protect the > > committer as it is their impression the work is being licensed > under > > Apache 2. This structure, however does not protect the contributor > > (you) of a joint work. > > > > The problem as I see it with your semi-private SVN is that your > "patch" > > is not exclusively yours, it's the joint owners. You as a joint > owner > > can license it anyway you want as long as you share the royalties > and > > don't diminish its value. > > > > Distributing it under Apache 2, diminishes its value. So, only an > > individual entity (individual or corporation) can distribute it > under > > Apache 2. The only way as I see around this is to have a specific > > agreement amongst all joint owners allowing for its distribution > under > > Apache 2. This agreement creates a legally binding partnership and > now > > you're subject to the representations and liabilities that the > other > > joint owners make regarding the joint work in their licensing to > other > > people. Not a pretty pickle. > > > > Does this make my understanding of the scenario clear? > > > > > > > > On a side note (from the findlaw article), a copyright holder > cannot > > waive their termination right in advance. This makes for an > > interesting scenario 35 years from now. Perhaps the ASF should > > reconsider the copyright assignment that the FSF has adopted. > Although > > then you have to rethink the trick of the CLA. This could get > scary as > > the copyright is owned by the estate and thus can be distributed to > > heirs/debtors upon death. > > > > > >> I'm really lost. Anyway, if it's a non-issue, just let me know? > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Don't need to brief me about open source and GPL/LGPL, I already > know > >> all that. > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> Chris Howe wrote: > >>> --- Tim Ruppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>> I reviewed patches for Anil and Ashish - that is correct. > There's > >> no > >>>> > >>>> fancy partnership here - nor is there any any legal concern, but > > >>>> that's truly not what this discussion should be about. > >>>> > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> You're absolutely correct that there isn't a _fancy partnership > >>> present. The partnership created is the same mundane one that is > >>> created every day. I must disagree with you, it is of GREAT > legal > >>> concern. Since you obviously did not follow the link of > background > === message truncated ===
