On Jul 13, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
Most of this seems common sense. And I am a bit surprised people feel
that it needs to be spelled out. But it is probably good to make the
intentions completely clear even for a public list.
Just one little nitpick.
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:22 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The terms and conditions that apply to
your Contributions are defined by either a contributor license
agreement (CLA) signed by you and/or your employer or, if no such CLA
is on file at the Foundation, by the terms and conditions of
Contributions as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Could we not use the Apache License, Version 2.0. But state something
like "are in the public domain". (Or use APL/GPL-dual license, LGPL,
MIT/X, modern-BSD, etc.) So that we can all use such contributions.
Most of the existing projects, like gcj, kaffe, cacao, jamvm, GNU
Classpath, etc. cannot accept GPL-incompatible code.
Any code that is contributed *via the list* will be deemed to be
under the AL, both for the purposes of rules of contribution (so that
any applicable patent licenses are granted) as well as default
license for recipient. This is exactly the same as if it came in
through JIRA. I'm just trying to keep things clear and clean.
As as recipient, you can choose to take under the AL, or just go to
the contributor of the code, and ask for another arrangement, like a
license under the GPL or whatever makes one happy.
I really understand where you are coming from, and really thought
about how to present this, because there is no intent to stir up the
license wars again :) I had just been receiving questions from many
people and organizations, and felt that we should just make it clear.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
