Matt, you're saying the same thing, except it's not one individual but
two [1] (spmallette + okram) , who own the vast majority of the IP. They
also claim to be in the possession of CLAs from the other contributors.
The problem was not insufficient data to substantiate claims, but TMI.
Secretary@ pushed back for that clear reason, the proposal for
resubmission addressed that. If secretary@ will have additional concerns
(including forwarding to legal@), we'll address them as they come.
Hadrian
[1] https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
On 02/02/2015 09:53 AM, Matt Franklin wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
