Sorry about the delay. Traveling.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
I am proposing that we strictly abide by the advertised Apache Harmony
Contribution Policy at:
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html
but, we add one additional condition that must be met by the ASF, and we
add an explicit mention of it on signed ICLAs:
1- Current and future SableVM contributors sign the ICLA for
contributing patches and possibly gaining commit rights.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
2- Also, contributors must complete the Authorized Contributor
Questionnaire and submit to the Harmony PMC.
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/auth_cont_quest.html
3- I sign a Software Grant license (with the authorization of the
appropriate SableVM authors to do so) for each bulk contribution.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
4- I fill a Bulk Contribution Checklist for each bulk contribution.
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
you wish me to do so.]
6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
records and our records.
To be frank, I am not in favor of this 5 and 6.
I wouldn't support giving any subset of our contributors a special
treatment like this. How could we say no to any other contributor that
asked for the same consideration?
I sincerely think that the above should be acceptable to all parties
involved. SableVM authors would end up strictly abiding by the existing
contribution policy, yet the ASF would be providing us with the security
we require to acknowledge our contributions.
*We* would have that acknowledgment here at Apache Harmony, but I tend
to be uninterested in forcing downstream recipients to do things.
Please don't take this as dismissive of your concerns - I too am proud
of the work that I do, and like anyone else, don't mind recognition.
See below for a short comment.
Leo Simons wrote:
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.
"When hell freezes over..."
As far as I know, the ASF has no power to control US federal and state
governments. So, the ASF cannot assure me that US laws will never
change in the next millennium (you never know how long the US government
will extend copyright, given Disney's lobbying) as to allow Microsoft or
any such party to gain control on the ASF, possibly after a bankrupt or
something similar. It is very difficult to predict the future of any
corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
[Of course, the US government can also adopt laws that invalidate
written contracts...]
So here's my concern. The ASF as foundation acts in the best interests
of it's charter, which IMO has implicit considerations for the community
surrounding our codebases.
I trust the ASF to do the right thing.
Here's a totally hypothetical example - suppose the law changed, either
explicitly or via caselaw, that put any entity (individuals or company)
listed in documentation with a software product in some kind of legal
risk or jeopardy. I can just imagine the "Responisiblity in Software
Act" or some other such foolishness.
The ASF would act, changing policy and license to protect the developers.
A suggestion like yours would tie their hands or seriously complicate it.
I guess I need to re-read through this so I can be sure I understand
where you are coming from.
geir
Hoping that my proposal above is acceptable to all.
Etienne
PS: It seems we're getting down to the "real" stuff... heh.
