On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > [Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion > on two lists, > so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration, but it has > to do with the > fact that "release" is not so well distinguished as one might hope.] > > Minor nit? #1: > > Generally, because of what is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE and > NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that point in > the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an important > ceremonial > distinction with regard to using the archived packaging of an approved Apache > Release.
I was thinking exactly that while reading the thread. Now, to be fair, most of the time statements made by both of these are correct. I actually haven't seen that much licensing issues with TLP during release cycles. > Not-so-minor nit? #2: > > "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) > under one or more contributor license agreements. > See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work > for additional information regarding copyright > ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under > the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at > the very top of many individual files in typical ASF > Project repositories. Yup. That goes back to the clarification I've just requested from Ross. 'cuz I agree -- I can see it being interpreted in more than one way. > Techno-legal nit? #3: > > From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>: > > "You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients > of software **distributed** by the Foundation a perpetual, > worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, > irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare > derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, > sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such > derivative works." > > ** emphasis mine in both places Great point. I haven't connected the dots with ICLAs myself, but it totally makes sense to talk about ICLA since it is the document that governs the ingest point of new contributions. > Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4 > > A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of > mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," > non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I > provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08. > > This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or future > ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license granted > under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the > Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. > This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of > those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA > (technically not an ALv2 license either). > > I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to > LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL > license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration > has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.) Interesting! Thanks for the pointer. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
