Etienne Gagnon wrote:
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.
Yes. The idea is that we trust the ASF to do the Right Thing. When the
ASF doesn't do the Right Thing, it will be a hollow shell as all of us
would leave.
Also, "we" are the ASF - there is no "them".
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?
Nope.
geir
Etienne
