Hi - This IPMC member is finding this whole discussion circular.
I’m including this link [1] from the discussion on legal-discuss@ which did include replies from other contributors. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9d0eab51653bfa6ead4b61e2ea0a7b435c0d3195ff1ed2ae3fdeb8f0%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E IMO - This is spot on and the most that is required here is that: (a) The Cloudstack PMC wants to include the software, and understands the risk in the rare and unlikely case that any of the original contributors wants to deny use. If that happens then the PMC will handle the situation as all PMCs must. If there is a failure there then that is a Board situation. (b) A SGA has been provided which indicates that Hashicorp considered that all license and ownership issues are moot. OR - Sander’s ICLA and now current holding of the software. > On Jun 22, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Please stop mixing public and private lists. Feel free to forward any email > to the relevant private list but don’t mix them as it's very easy for > something that should only appear on a private list to become public. > >> The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main >> author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and all >> top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative >> including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now). > > There are more than 5 major contributors and I’m not sure that your top 5 > contributors have actually agreed. Please provide documentations that shows > this. If you followed the thread above: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3a96f1220393409c3ca2ce619786fb23fdac3b334a00584d26cf1ecd%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7e9b5767102ddfa3b871f6252d4fa8ef5e6ff8c8af044b314991682a%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r522c7ef78f19bd60f6f3c156e607e4b655e7683d7f7f176731b9d617%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r43ba1d098675bb48e4fed80e34b2123364e9a1e3bbf98223bfda2ad7%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > If you look at the IP clearance documentation it states "Either an Individual > CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software Grant. All authors must sign > an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign one of the three documents > and send to secretary” > > Has this been done? Justin - you seem to be asserting ownership rights where there may be none. > >> I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but feel >> free to advise: >> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack >> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstac > > Who owns the IP? Just because Sander is the original author of some of the > code doesn't mean he owns the IP. If he did the work while he was employed by > Hashicorp (and I don't know if this was the case) it’s likely they own the IP > not him, but his employment contract may have stated something else. Again > the same applies for the other contributors. We have no need to see employment contracts. Since Hashicorp transferred the project to Sander then he has the rights AFAICT. > > A further complication is the code wasn’t under a license that is compatible > with the Apache license. > > I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide > documentation that shows otherwise. I think that this IP Clearance will need an actual vote (as I don’t think it will be lazy consensus.) All The Best, Dave > > Kind Regards, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
