On Mon Feb 02 2015 at 8:09:43 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 02/01/2015 03:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:12 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 1:05:10 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 1/31/15, 9:09 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt Franklin > >>>> <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:22:15 AM Benson Margulies > >>>>> <bimargul...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:55 AM, James Carman > >>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Are there guidelines for these "usual considerations"? > >>>>>> For all the small stuff, the safe path is to get an ICLA from each > >>>>>> committer, and an email message positively stating an intent to > donate > >>>>>> the code. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, this is the safest approach; but, may not be necessary for > changes > >>>>> that do not represent significant IP. For instance, our projects > accept > >>>>> minor contributions through JIRA, without an ICLA. > >>>> There's a critical distinction here. Once you have released a product > >>>> under the Apache license, people can contribute new things to it under > >>>> the terms of the license. The license has very specific language: if > >>>> you take code from us, and then send us a contribution (email, JIRA, > >>>> github PR, carrier pigeon) that is a derivative of what you took, you > >>>> are granting the code to the Foundation. > >>>> > >>>> That doesn't help with the initial import of a project from github or > >>>> bitbucket or Jupiter or Mars; none of those contributions met the > >>>> criteria in the license of sending a contribution back to the > >>>> Foundation, because the code wasn't here in the first place. > >>> Just curious, what if the code was under AL but not at Apache? > >>> > >> The license is pretty clear about this: > >> > >> *5. Submission of Contributions*. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, > >> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by > You > >> to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, > >> without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, > >> nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate > license > >> agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such > Contributions. > >> > >> So basically, anything you contribute back is assumed to be under the > >> Apache license, unless you (the author) say otherwise or there's some > other > >> license in play (The apache license doesn't supersede other licenses). > Of > >> course you should consult with legal counsel before making any > >> contributions though. I think to Benson's point, The ASF requires that > any > >> incoming code was put in under that license agreement or there's a SGA > >> stating the prior license can be converted. > > Note the phrase, "intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by > > You _to the Licensor_". Who is the licensor for a body of work not at > > Apache? The process has to start with a clear ownership of copyright > > -- the licensor. The purpose of the SGA, I think, is to get a clear > > answer to that question. You might be able to argue that a particular > > github repo is made up of an initial work with a single owner, and > > then contributions to it under the terms of the AL. In which case, > > you'd just need an SGA from that original single owner. IANAL. > > > > > My understanding is that the Licensor is whomever claims to be 'it'. As > long ans the claimant produces documentation to substantiate the claim > that we can accept, we should be good. I don't see a need/requirement > for the Licensor to necessarily be a legal organization. That is if it's > not one single owner but a small group of contributors/owners, that > should be ok too. > My understanding is that the licensor must be able to own the copyright, thus a legal entity (company or individual). IMO, we should either take the acceptance of Tinkerpop as a Licensor to legal@ or we just ask anyone who has contributed signifiant IP to sign an ICLA with new copyright assignment. > > IANAL, $0.02, > Hadrian > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
