On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 12:43:14PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 25/04/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 11:55:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > On 20/04/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 06:13:16PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > On 19/04/07, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > True, and I don't have a problem with that. However, I will also > > > > > > grant an irrevocable license to everyone who "receives" my > > contribution > > > > > > to do whatever they like with it, and that presumably includes any > > > > patch > > > > > > that I may post to an OpenSolaris list. This license doesn't seem > > to > > > > be > > > > > > the CDDL; it's just a license to "make, have made, use, sell, offer > > to > > > > > > sell, import and otherwise transfer... and to sublicense the > > foregoing > > > > > > rights" and it doesn't even provide for a requirement to retain > > credit; > > > > > > i.e., I'm essentially placing the "contribution" in the public > > domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, I grant Sun a right to sue for infringement, not that > > there > > > > > > seem to be many ways to infringe the above, and if I'm doing that > > by > > > > > > mailing the list then I'd like to know up front [1][2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, if I sign up as part of a company, then I potentially need > > to > > > > > > get clearance just to send email to the lists as a result of the > > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now presumably some people here have signed the thing, so I really > > am > > > > > > canvassing for what they thought about it - did they interpret it > > > > > > differently, did they not care, were they happy with these clauses? > > > > > > I promise that I am not trolling here. > > > > > > > > > > I'm one of those that signed the agreement. > > > > > > > > > > In my understanding, (I am not a lawyer, etc.), it essentially gives > > > > > Sun joint copyright for my contribution. As a result, they have the > > > > > right to license, distribute, etc. that contribution however they > > see > > > > > fit. Essentially, every right that I have as a copyright holder, > > they > > > > > do too now. > > > > > > > > Agreed. However, the agreeement goes further with the grant of rights. > > > > > > > > > Your contribution is only available under the terms that Sun gives > > it > > > > > someone else under, not "whatever." > > > > > > > > The way I read it, the license is granted to everyone who "receives" > > the > > > > contribution, which necessarily means everyone subscribed to the > > mailing > > > > list or who finds the post via Google and so forth. It's not just Sun. > > > > > > > > Of course, that assumes that a post to the mailing list constitutes > > > > "submission to the Project" and that's where I'm somewhat nervous. > > > > > > I don't read it that way, nor do I think that is right. The > > > contributor agreement gives you and *Sun* joint copyright. > > > > Yes, that's the copyright grant, clause #2. So far as copyright goes, > > we are in agreement. > > > > > Not any random person on the mailing list. > > > > Not a grant of copyright, but clause #3 reads: > > > > You hereby grant to Sun, and to any party who receives Your Contribution, > > a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, > > royalty-free, > > license under any patents owned or licensable by You at any time without > > payment to third parties, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, > > import and otherwise transfer Your Contribution in whole or in part, > > alone or in combination with or included in any product, work or > > materials > > arising out of the Project to which Your Contribution was submitted, and > > to sublicense the foregoing rights to third parties through multiple > > tiers > > of sublicensees or other licensing mechanisms at Sun's option. > > > > There's not much grey there. > > > > The question I have is just whether an email to an OpenSolaris mailing > > list constitutes a Contribution. The clause above states pretty clearly > > that if it does, anyone who receives the mail can do pretty much what they > > like with the contents. > > Again, I don't agree with your interpretation. However, if you wish to > pursue this further, I suggest consulting legal council. No one here > can provide you the information you seek.
It's Sun's wording, so I think that someone from Sun could probably make
the intent here crystal clear and possibly reword the thing to make it
clear in future versions of the agreement, as it happens.
I don't intend to pay for legal counsel so that I can contribute to an
open source project when I can personally avoid the issue by not signing
the agreement and not contributing, but I consider that somewhat
suboptimal.
I am also somewhat concerned about what this may mean for any patches
that may get posted to an OpenSolaris mailing list by someone who has
signed the agreement.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
pgplBVjA8r7S6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
