Hi, On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Yonik Seeley<yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > Regarding the software grant debate in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567 > IMO, it's pretty subjective what needs a software grant, and I don't > think we should throw up any hard'n'fast rules about it. The bottom > line is that the PMC/committers are responsible for IP oversight for > everything committed.
Agreed, the important thing is to ensure that we have the right to publish and distribute the contributed code in our releases. That can mean an existing license on the contribution, a reference to section 5 of ALv2, a CLA, a software grant, or whatever else that will hold up under a license review. There are few people who understand the potential licensing complexities of code developed by a number of different contributors. Does the submitter know that the work of the previous developers was meant to be contributed to Apache? Where's the paper trail for that? A software grant is a simple and easy way to cover an entire contribution. In this case, since all the work was apparently done within IBM (who'd then be the copyright owner), anyone listed in the "Schedule A" of an IBM CCLA could also contribute the code without needing an explicit software grant. BR, Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
