[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: general@incubator.apache.org; ComDev <d...@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.
[ ... ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
