I was joking too. In any case, legalese aside, I think attribution is
both ethical and okay on either side of the table, the divergence of
opinion seems to be with the copyright. Besides attribution, what I am
trying to achieve with the copyright is the ability to take the code in
an independent direction as a copyright holder five years in the future
if SA hypothetically decides to be purchased by Oracle or what have you.
I am not sure if a dual copyright (which based on my limited
understanding is the same thing as a perpetual, transferable,
non-revocable license) is possible, but if so, I would be more than
happy to assign.
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 3/14/2014 2:59 PM, Tamer Rizk wrote:
Sure, no problem, I would be happy to contribute to helping the
ongoing effort to solve the global spam problem and as a small token
of appreciation for the SpamAssassin project and the Apache Foundation
in general. Can you point me to the appropriate CLA so that I may
verify that there are no conflicts with anything else that I am
working on?
:-)
See https://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
In so much as there is no conflict, SpamAssassin is more than welcome
to an irrevocable, perpetual and transferable license to use and make
changes to the contribution in any manner. I would retain copyright
attribution within the source and documentation of the package and its
derivatives somewhat akin to a leaner version of Sir Bacon sans lines
2-5.
I don't think Sir Bacon actually has any copyright on the code,
actually. I think Alex was joking about the dead guy and BACN
If code has a copyright or author other than ASF, ASF policy is it is
removed - https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html has more on the
issue. So you can give us permission to remove that information but
otherwise, you really aren't transferring the contribution to the ASF.
regards,
KAM
