a<bar> در تاریخ ۲۱ اوت ۲۰۱۵ ۲۳:۰۷، "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> نوشت:
> [Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched > discussion on two lists, so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to > Ross's declaration, but it has to do with the fact that "release" is not so > well distinguished as one might hope.] > > Minor nit? #1: > > Generally, because of what is seen in the repository in terms of LICENSE > and NOTICE placement, it appears to apply to everything at and below that > point in the repository. A casual observer cannot tell that there is an > important ceremonial distinction with regard to using the archived > packaging of an approved Apache Release. > > Not-so-minor nit? #2: > > "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) > under one or more contributor license agreements. > See the NOTICE file **distributed** with this work > for additional information regarding copyright > ownership. The ASF licenses this file to you under > the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the 'License')" at > the very top of many individual files in typical ASF > Project repositories. > > Techno-legal nit? #3: > > From <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>: > > "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." > > ** emphasis mine in both places > > Avoiding the nit-pickers by picking more nit? #4 > > A while back, because I was concerned that some user of a contribution of > mine might be trapped in a hair splitting between "distribution," > non-distribution, and "released" I made a supplemental declaration. I > provided a copy to the Secretary of the Foundation on 2013-03-08. > > This broader statement grants to **all parties obtaining** any past or > future ASF **contribution** of mine effectively the same copyright license > granted under the iCLA without the condition that it be distributed by the > Foundation. You can see it in all of its glory at < > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e>. > This is not the same as an ALv2 license, but it basically gives to all of > those parties the same terms as provided to the ASF under the iCLA > (technically not an ALv2 license either). > > I have made a comparable declaration by any contribution I might make to > LibreOffice. I have *not* provided LibreOffice with the dual MPL-LGPL > license declaration they tend to request. (The receipt of that declaration > has not been acknowledged, but I stand behind it.) > > (Le sigh) > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com] > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 09:14 > To: gene...@incubator.apache.org; ComDev <dev@community.apache.org> > Subject: RE: What is the legal basis for enforcing release policies at ASF? > > [ ... ] > > Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That > combined work is only licensed as such when the foundation formally > approves it. This happens when the PMC members indicate that, to the best > of their knowledge, a specified combined work (a source package) conforms > with the legal and policy expectations of ask source code included (both > ours and upstream). > > Individual contributions in our source repository are under ALv2. These > are approved as such, through a best effort analysis, at the point of > contribution. [ ... ] > >
