At 02:43 PM 3/25/2005, Costin Manolache wrote: >On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:25:06 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That employer could do so in any case. They retain their own >> ownership and copyright even after granting rights to the ASF. > >Is this the case (i.e. both ASF and the contributor have ownership of >the code ) ? That's another piece of information where I heard >conflicting stories, and more vetted information would be useful.
See section 2. of the CLA 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. You can make that same grant again, grant Your creation under yet another Copyright License, and use Your creation in any manner. You can't revoke the ASL terms for the code at the time of the Grant. You can't grant program FOO under the ASL, and then later try to claim that program FOO is granted solely under the GPL. You have given the ASF the right to relicense under the ASL 3.0 when it comes along. But it remains forever your creation. As for the "risk" of forking, the ASL has always permitted this, provided you do not continue to call the fork'ed code by the same name as the ASF's project. You can't later run the FOO project under another umbrella, unless you change the project name, e.g. BAR. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
