If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? > > Nobody owns it. > >> If >> I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it >> indicates that an entity known as "The Groovy community" owns it, in which >> case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is "The Groovy >> community" not a legal entity? >> >> The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to > Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion > larger than the language itself. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
