On Aug 16, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
I've also found that there are 6 individuals listed in the
Facebook CCLA who do not have ICLAs with us and have accordingly
contacted them as well.
Was the Facebook CCLA a software grant and were the 6 individuals
Facebook
employees (if not, why were they listed in the CCLA)?
They were not Facebook employees. The individuals in question were
listed
as exclusions to the covered contributions. See
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/facebook-2.pdf
Thanks for the clarification. I would think we would want ICLAs from
those 6. I don't suppose these folks had to sign anything before the
code was contributed to Apache? Out of curiosity, what license was the
code under before it came to Apache?
So the first question is: do we have any contingency strategies
for the likely situation where not all past contributors to Thrift
will have paperwork on file in the near future? Can Thrift still
cut a release or does that block it? Thrift was in fact an open
source project prior to coming here, and it *has* released stuff
under
an alternate license. Does that mitigate the issue at all?
See my comment above.
The second question regards the LICENSE file. I'm accustomed to
seeing all the licenses for all the code to be distributed listed
in the LICENSE file, but don't see anywhere within the Incubator
docs that this concept is mandatory. I've been pushing Thrift to
do this because that's the way I've usually seen it done but the
idea hasn't gained any traction with the thrift devs yet. Is there
such a policy, does it simply constitute best practice, or am I
barking up the wrong tree?
I was under the impression the LICENSE file should contain the
Apache license.
All other licenses should be referenced in the NOTICE file. See
http://www.apache.org/licenses/.
That's not the way the Apache HTTPD Server manages their LICENSE file.
Each 3rd party component's corresponding license is included in the
LICENSE file.
Perhaps I misunderstand how the LICENSE and NOTICE files are to be
used then. The link above actually includes a link to an HTTPD server
NOTICE file as an example. That sample NOTICE file does not include
the actual license text and doesn't contain either the 3rd party
license or a link to it so it clearly isn't sufficient. However, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-31
, which discusses this, is still unresolved.
The third issue is that Thrift intends to distribute with an LGPL
dependency on their build system. I'm familiar with the scary
language
adopted by the legal team regarding the LGPL, but don't consider
this
situation to be problematic since it's just a few Makefiles and
such.
Will I need to get special permission from legal for this?
If they are using Maven 2 and if the LGPL dependency is referenced
as a
dependency in the pom such that it is downloaded during the build
and is not
distributed with Apache software (or if the build process is
functionally
equivalent to this), I personally would have no problem with it
being used as
part of the build.
It's a C-style project, with C-style Makefiles. Nothing is
downloaded during
the build process- the LGPL'd Makefiles in question are in
subversion and to
be distributed within a release package.
My preference is that works under Category X shouldn't be in Apache
SVN nor should they be distributed as part of an Apache release. I
believe that is in general alignment with conversations on legal-
discuss in the past but I would expect that to get answered in the
Jira issue, should one be created.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
