On Jan 3, 2012 2:33 AM, "Christian Boos" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/3/2012 2:02 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Monday, January 2, 2012 6:03:05 PM UTC-5, Christian Boos wrote: > > Besides, even if the license would be the same, another concern is the > > Apache policy related to contributor license agreements. I now wonder > > if the Bloodhound project will even able to integrate our changes back > > into their contributed and modified files (in a kind of "regularly > > merge from upstream" workflow), as the changes contributed to Trac > > > > The CLA that Apache committers sign says they have the "right" to commit > > the patch to version control. Whether that right is based on those > > provided by the BSD license, or that the committer has authored their > > own work... they can still make the commit. > > > > In short: the ASF won't have any problems carrying upstream changes into > > its codebase. > > > > My question also covered Trac modifications to ALv2-only > files (i.e. those originally contributed by Bloodhound). Will > they also be integrated back? I fear not, otherwise that would > provide an easy way around the CLA which is mandatory on the > Apache side.
You could make a reasonable argument that those modifications were made under the ALv2 stamped on the file. Further, clause 5 of ALv2 could be construed as applying to those modifications made to the ALv2 files living in the Trac repository. And remember: everything is upon the committer. They can *always* commit fraud against the CLA they signed. They could be lifting code from inside a company's private product. The ASF takes the signed CLA at face value, and does not second guess. The committer must know they have the right to apply the patch. I think that minor changes to an ALv2 file are easy. Large changes... maybe a little extra work (a statement, or even better, a CLA) would be prudent. Should Trac coders worry about it? You could say, "not my problem; the Bloodhound coders need to figure it out." You could also argue they should for better cross-project improvement. Personal choice, I think. Is it clean? Nope. Could it be better? Yup. Does it really matter in the end? Probably not. Intentions are important, but reality is only settled in a court, if it comes to that. And a court will look very strongly at intent, rather than just paperwork. And do we ever expect to be in a court? I sure hope not! (fwiw, one purpose of the ASF is keeping committers out of court) Cheers, -g -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
