I don't have a vote here, but I"m now confused about what problem is being solved. Is it, as Stian says, that an entity is being lazy and did not attempt to review the contents of the grant before donating? I thought the goal is to just keep folks from bothering us with additional language on these grants.
I would think it is still required of the receiving project to review the contents assuming the donor made a good faith attempt to review the contents as well. But as I think Stian is saying (and I'm saying since I experienced it), mistakes are going to happen and things that shouldn't have been donated will be accidentally listed in exhibit A. Do our legal advisors think that some conditional or exclusion for accidents is built into the grant wording already or should some language about that be added to software-grant.txt ? What is the protocol if, even after IP clearance/grant acceptance, that something is found in the included files that shouldn't be in there? I assume Apache takes the friendly approach of "Oops, that probably shouldn't have been in there" and just deletes that file? Thanks, -Alex On 9/7/17, 2:51 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <st...@apache.org> wrote: >+1 > > >However it should be OK (and perhaps even encouraged) for the archive >to list in NOTICE or similar that some of the files are not legally >owned by the donating entity, for instance other open source files >that have been used – legally they can’t be part of the IP grant >(unless the donating entity have gained shared copyright after further >modifications - but their upstream license would still apply). > > >This does not mean the donated archive has to be fully IP cleared >before donation.. of course the opposite could be true – the grant >donates some code, which the podling later chooses not to keep – for >instance by discovering an LGPL-licensed file from outside. > > >What is not OK is as you suggest, to include files which ARE owned by >the donating entity, but which are somehow not included in the grant. > > >On 7 September 2017 at 09:32, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +1 >> >> >> On Sep 7, 2017 10:11, "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (not binding, not part of IPMC) >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> Le 07/09/2017 à 10:07, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit : >>> >>>> Hi Incubator PMC. >>>> >>>> We recently received a software grant pointing to an archive file for >>>> the code donation, but mentioning that some material contained in that >>>> archive might not be donated. >>>> >>>> This was discussed on the PMC private list and it looks like we have >>>> consensus for rejecting such grants in the future: software donations >>>> should only include the files that are donated, without conditionals >>>> or exclusions. Anything else puts an unnecessary burden on our >>>> podlings and mentors, for sorting out what's donated or not. >>>> >>>> This is a vote to formalize the decision to reject such grants in the >>>> future. >>>> >>>> This majority vote is open for at least 72 hours. >>>> >>>> Here's my +1. >>>> >>>> -Bertrand >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>> >>> > > > >-- >Stian Soiland-Reyes >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org% >2F0000-0001-9842-9718&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4ccc95b5bed04f674d6c08d4f5d61513%7 >Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636403747211522975&sdata=RAK%2 >FkockH7FRLShyGRSaXCQuTDyDEXgXUrjfsC9xS8w%3D&reserved=0 > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
