Hi Geir, > b) hopefully an ICLA from each contributor
The ICLA rules are less restrictive than the Apache License rules: 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. Unless I missed something, this not force the ASF to abide by the Apache License 2.0 rules. So, for example, the ASF could sublicense derivatives of our work under any license it wants, without even acknowledging our contribution in a NOTICE file. Most SableVM authors do not agree to allow derivative works not to clearly aknowledge their contribution. This is our only real retribution for the work we contribute. I understand that it is critical, for the ASF, to design new licenses, but rule "2." above seems too permissive, at first sight. Have I missed something? Etienne -- Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/ SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/ SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
