On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > On 8/22/12 2:05 PM, "labri...@digitalprimates.net" > <labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote: > >>> Are the works either (c) Michael Labriola or (c) Some Company w/a CCLA? >> >> Some of each actually. >> >>> Assuming that all the copyright holders are OK then I believe that it is >>> likely that they may be checked in without a code grant under the AL2. > IANAL, but the model in my head says that only the copyright holders can > change the copyrights to AL2, and the grant or something similar is needed > to have a record of the transaction, giving Apache a license to use that > material.
The AL2 does not assign copyright, it grants a license. The ASF has a policy to not take software regardless of the license unless the copyright holder grants it. By signing the ICLA you have indicated that you have permission from the copyright holder to make any contributions that you make. For Apache OpenOffice the code from Oracle's SGA was checked in and a project committer who works for Oracle changed all the license headers. They also assigned the trademarks. The first is different from Adobe with Flex. The second is similar with the difference being the continued use of Flex by Adobe. > > Some Adobe doc is under Creative Commons and can thus be used under CC > rules, but I'm not sure about whole bodies of works. If that is the case for these documents that may change the answer, but INAL. Regards, Dave > > But I am quite interested in what you find out. > > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
