Re: Refactoring Create Order process during OFBiz Developers Conference Sponsored by Hotwax Media

[Tim Ruppert]

Can we all agree on the fact that there is a protocol in place, that if followed, allows everyone the ability to pass code around in a legal format? This may or may not be the most optimal format for said collaboration, but it does permit us to contribute back to the community in a meaningful way.

Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595


On Jan 26, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Chris Howe wrote:

Let's table this sandbox discussion until we find a movement complex enough that it requires something more than incremental changes to be made to the trunk before we can agree to include it. Does that sound reasonable? Once there is an idea to build something that cannot follow this incremental pattern, we can evaluate where we are in terms of resources and determine the best course of action to follow.

--- 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.

and license grant to protect itself.

That may not be sufficient. The ASF does quite a bit more than the CLA

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

to the community but owned by ASF.

not a pretty pickle and thus my ranting for a sandbox that is available

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 ===

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature