On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Noel J. Bergman <n...@devtech.com> wrote: > Joe Schaefer wrote: > >> I don't see how this has any bearing on the vote. The ASF doesn't require >> entities to disclose whether or not any particular contribution includes a >> patent license. > > We do, however, have the patent clause to ensure that contributed code comes > with license for any necessary and owned IP. What would not be covered > would be any hypothetical 3rd party patent(s) that might potentially be > infringed by a contribution. > >> If at some point there needs to be a discussion about outstanding patent >> claims regarding the code grant to the ASF, that is best done in the >> confines of a podling, on the podling's public dev list. > > Well, started perhaps with ASF Legal, and then discussed as determined > appropriate by our lawyers. Which suggests to me that Sam ought to quietly > take the lead on this issue, and we should put it aside for the moment.
We definitely should decide whether or not we wish to accept this proposal before we invest efforts in mitigation. Any mitigation will involve code, and all participants will be able to vote on whether or not to accept that code. Additionally, it will be incumbent on all participants to review subsequent changes and potentially veto such changes. As stated earlier in such threads such vetoes will need to be accompanied by explanations. The net of all of this is that there will need to be a substantial public aspect to this entire discussion. Yes, I will probably have some private discussions with ASF lawyers over time over this matter, but I can't see any way that we can -- or should -- avoid the need for public discussion over this matter. > --- Noel - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
