On 11/9/16, 1:55 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> @Justin
>> I don't understand the NOTICE thing... what is the PRODUCT_NAME?
>> ("Apache Flex", "Spark material", "Apache Flex Spark Material", ...)
>
>You have two options.
>1, Relicense the project under an Apache license. That way Apache Flex
>can use it, for this is would be helpful to adda NOTICE file, in this
>case the project name would be your project i.e. "Spark material”
>2. Donate the code to Apache Flex via a software grant.
>
>A software grant Is a little more work and would end up with the code
>being owned by the ASF not yourself.
Even the software grant does not change ownership. It only provides a
license. IMO, a software grant is best used for donating
corporation-owned existing software code bases. Everything else
contributed by individuals probably only needs an ICLA. Continued
contributions from individuals employed by a corporation should be ok'd by
a CCLA.
Apache does want to "own" the community and its trademarks, if any. But
owning a community isn't true legal ownership. It just means that the
true source of the source code is at Apache and everything else is
considered a fork or legacy.
Fundamentally, the question here is which lines of code are truly owned by
Rui and which are owned by his company. For the record, a few lines of
code are owned by Olaf unless he assigned ownership at some point to Rui
or his company. Rui does not have the right to relicense any
company-owned lines of code without permission from his company.
Rui, were you working for this company when you first started on the Spark
Material library? If so, then depending on where you live and where the
company "lives", it might be best to ask someone at your company whether
they think they own it.
Thanks,
-Alex
