On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > ... > > ======================================================= > 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. > ======================================================= > > There are two way I can see how to read this "Licensed to..." statement. > The first one is, indeed, along the lines of an original author re-licensing > code under a different license.
I don't think this can be read that way. The quoted portion refers only to the software being licensed to the ASF, not the ASF re-licensing the software under a different license. The relevant text for that normally immediately follows the quoted portion: "... The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License'); ..." > Clearly, only original author(s) can make that statement. Not necessarily. The original license may allow for third-parties to sublicense the code, given restrictions. > However, a different way to read it (tell me if I'm stretching here) is to > interpret it as an overall project that is being "Licensed to..." with the > file itself remaining under the original license. I think that interpretation fails due to the explicit wording "under one or more contributor license agreements." The original license is not a CLA. That said, whether the original license allows a third-party (the ASF) to sublicense the covered code under yet another license (the Apache License) depends completely on the original license itself. - Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
