Hey hey, I definitely understand the reasoning. Hmm. I think the way to look at it is, "it depends, but do whatever is needed to allow apache liberal rights to sublicense all the IP to it's users".
The second way to look at it is that logic and legal stuff are not always as closely connected as you might think...so I think this really is something to run by legal-discuss / whoever designed the process (Roy?), people like me just regurgitate what they learned before :) cheerio, Leo On Dec 1, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been thinking about Leo's email of the other day, and I think > that my edit to the mentor page is not right and some guidance I've > delivered to podlings is not right. > > I'd like to float my logic here and see how it gets shot at. > > As Leo pointed out, the CCLA has a specific section for granting > rights to pre-existing IP. > > The ICLA does not. It has no schedule. It talks about contributions. > > When we import pre-existing code for a podling, it seems to me that it > is dubious to characterize this as an act of 'contribution' by the > historical authors, even if they are eagerly anticipating further > contributions to the code in the incubator. > > Therefore, I think that I should edit my edit, and send new advice, to > the effect that all historical contributors need to be covered by > SGAs. Those could be in the form of SGA schedules or in the form of > individual SGAs. > > --benson > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
