Since the contributors were employed at Cloudera, they probably signed an invention assignment. That means Cloudera can sign an SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" > > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > > > > >Alex, > > > > > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that > > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of > > >the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If > > >it’s not the case, we go by the license of the project which stipulates > > >how code can be copied, modified, reused, etc. > > > > Yes, but my interpretation of your words is that folks have to opt out, > > > > Correct: opt-out. > > Since this code is under ALv2, we can import it to the ASF under that > license. We have always done stuff like this, including other permissive > licenses. > > But this isn't simply importing a library, this is saying "the ASF is now > the primary locus of development for >this< code." And that's where people > can say, "woah. I hate you guys. don't develop my code there", and so we > nuke it. > > SGA/iCLA is to give us rights that we otherwise wouldn't have (ie. the code > was under a different license). > > Cheers, > -g >
