You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Etienne Gagnon <eg...@sablevm.org> on 2006/03/23 16:32:19 UTC
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Hi Leo,
I started replying to your email, suggesting modifications to the ICLA
that would address my concerns. As this would probably lead to a very
long license thread, I erased it, and I am proposing a simpler solution.
I am proposing that we strictly abide by the advertised Apache Harmony
Contribution Policy at:
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html
but, we add one additional condition that must be met by the ASF, and we
add an explicit mention of it on signed ICLAs:
1- Current and future SableVM contributors sign the ICLA for
contributing patches and possibly gaining commit rights.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
2- Also, contributors must complete the Authorized Contributor
Questionnaire and submit to the Harmony PMC.
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/auth_cont_quest.html
3- I sign a Software Grant license (with the authorization of the
appropriate SableVM authors to do so) for each bulk contribution.
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
4- I fill a Bulk Contribution Checklist for each bulk contribution.
http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
you wish me to do so.]
6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
records and our records.
I sincerely think that the above should be acceptable to all parties
involved. SableVM authors would end up strictly abiding by the existing
contribution policy, yet the ASF would be providing us with the security
we require to acknowledge our contributions.
See below for a short comment.
Leo Simons wrote:
>>So, for example, the ASF could sublicense
>>derivatives of our work under any license it wants, without even
>>acknowledging our contribution in a NOTICE file.
>
> "When hell freezes over..."
As far as I know, the ASF has no power to control US federal and state
governments. So, the ASF cannot assure me that US laws will never
change in the next millennium (you never know how long the US government
will extend copyright, given Disney's lobbying) as to allow Microsoft or
any such party to gain control on the ASF, possibly after a bankrupt or
something similar. It is very difficult to predict the future of any
corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
[Of course, the US government can also adopt laws that invalidate
written contracts...]
Hoping that my proposal above is acceptable to all.
Etienne
PS: It seems we're getting down to the "real" stuff... heh.
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com>.
On 3/23/06, Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> With my Board Director hat on:
>
> I believe that it is a bug that the current ICLA gives the ASF enough
> power to relicense something without acknowledging who donated it to us.
>
> I would be in favor of changing the ICLA more than to sign an ad-hoc
> statement like the one you propose.
>
> With my Harmony hat on: I would like this to move as fast as we can and
> I don't know which one of the options is faster.
>
> Cliff, are you watching this? any comment?
sure -- below
On 3/24/06, Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org> wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >> , that that can
> >> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
> >> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
> >> it.
> >
> > No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a minimum
> > have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and then apache
> > would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache license, and
> > what that means is rather clear.
> >
>
> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of a
> VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
I'll try to address the issues that Stefano and Dalibor have brought
up with a summary of how works flow through Apache:
The works distributed by the ASF come from three sources:
1. works owned by committers or their employers and licensed to the
ASF under a (c)CLA or Software Grant.
2. third-party works that are licensed in ways that allow us to
redistribute them within Apache products -- see
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html for a draft of a policy
applying to these works.
3. the collective work of the product distribution itself, as
selected, coordinated, and arranged by the PMC. Unlike individual
commits and third-party works, the copyright in this collective work
is owned by the ASF.
Setting aside #3, here's how we deal with licensing of #1 and #2:
#1: The CLAs and Software Grant give the ASF a very broad copyright
license with basically no restrictions -- not even the notice
requirements of the Apache License. This allows the ASF the option to
sublicense the contributions under some future version of the Apache
License, including a version with the NOTICE section removed. The
CLAs/SG also includes a patent license and revocation clause that is
identical to what is passed on in the Apache License (the ASF doesn't
have much flexibility with this piece).
#2: Third-party works are always redistributed and sublicensed by the
ASF under the exact same terms that we received them under. We
certainly do not have the rights to remove any licensing restrictions
from third-party works nor subicense any rights not specified in the
license.
In neither case, should we be replacing a copyright notice with our
own. However, for committer contributions, we may choose to place
everyone's copyright notice in a single file, rather than scattered
throughout each piece of code that a committer authored (I will bring
this up on legal-discuss shortly). For third-party works, we never
touch the copyright header -- we leave such notices as we found them.
So, while I believe that there is nothing legally preventing the ASF
from distributing CLA works under a future license that removes the
NOTICE requirement, the copyright notices will always be maintained
somewhere in each release. It's also probably worth noting that there
are several NOTICE files today that have a line in there stating that
the initial contribution was developed by some company, like IBM or
BEA. No company has ever asked for a contract with the ASF to ensure
we never remove the NOTICE from any future release, but (AFAIK) there
also has not been any interest from anyone in removing it.
Does that help?
Cliff
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> you wish me to do so.]
>
> 6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
> to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
> ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
> records and our records.
With my Board Director hat on:
I believe that it is a bug that the current ICLA gives the ASF enough
power to relicense something without acknowledging who donated it to us.
I would be in favor of changing the ICLA more than to sign an ad-hoc
statement like the one you propose.
With my Harmony hat on: I would like this to move as fast as we can and
I don't know which one of the options is faster.
Cliff, are you watching this? any comment?
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
>> signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
>> it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
>> authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
>> under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
>> of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
>> found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
>> come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
>> off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
>> you wish me to do so.]
>
> Is the intent that you want to be able to claim copyright on VMs linking
> to Harmony's VM modules?
From what I understood, Etienne is concerned that the ASF would take
his code and decide to relicense it under the Apache License 2.0 without
mentioning him and wants to be protected against that even if there is
no record nor will of anybody here of doing so.
A little paranoid maybe, but sounds reasonable to me.
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Having
> submarine copyright holders on VMs using Harmony's VM modules or class
> libraries would be a pretty bad thing.
Dalibor,
FYI, *NO* ASF is immune for what you call "submarine copyright holders".
The ASF does not have records of all the copyright holders of the
software it distributes. I would also venture to say that the ASF does
*NOT* own any code at all, since it never paid anybody to write any code
nor asked for copyright transfer.
This was a very very very cautious decision and quite a clever one, if
you ask me: the copyright remains of the respective owners.
Just like for Kaffe, the IP trail of any ASF project is not trivial to
reconstruct, but this doesn't matter because:
a) all code is licensed under the same license
b) the ASF was given the right to relicense via the CLAs
Copyright law was not designed for "sharing" but for copy protection.
But when you give a "license" you are reducing some of that protection.
The fact that you still "own" a piece of intellectual property is
completely ineffective if you have given enough rights to the users to
modify, change, redistribute and, in case of the ASF, relicense.
Etienne identified an issue with this scheme: the ICLA gives the ASF
enough power to relicense his code without having to put his name on it,
even if he still maintains the copyright of (part of) it.
The ASF states "Copyright ASF and its licensors, where applicable."
Which means everything and nothing at the same time. We could also
remove that statement and nothing would change from a legal point of view.
Etienne doesn't like the fact that his name might simply disappear. He
doesn't like that and he's asking the ASF to guarantee him that his name
won't be removed from the NOTICE file.
Call it ego polishing, call it altar building, call it academic career
booster, call it whatever you want, but I still think he has the right
to be assured that his name won't be removed from the credits.
I see nothing harmful in this request, it's just going to take some time
to make it happen.
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:05:11PM -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> 3) not having ownership does not effect the ability for the ASF to
>> create successful and perpetual open development efforts around such
>> code. The owner cannot stop the ASF from continuing the effort unless it
>> violates the contract that was signed with the CLA. Given the broad
>> spectrum of rights that the CLA gives to the ASF.
>>
>> 4) copyright statements and giving credits are two different things
>> and I think it's wise to keep them separate.
>>
>> 5) the ASF considers it a moral obligation to give credit when due,
>> not a contractual one. In 10 years, Etienne is the only one who had a
>> problem with this.
>
> Or, potentially, the only one who has ever brought it up :-)
Fair enough.
>> It is reasonable for him to ask for such an
>> obligation to be contractual and not just moral, yet it is also
>> reasonable (and predictable) for some ASF members to feel insulted by
>> such a request.
>
> Hadn't actually thought of it in those terms just yet (and guessing at
> other people's opinions is always hard), but yeah, I can very much
> imagine things like that. Hmm.
>
> How confident are you this is the first time the question has been asked?
I don't know of any other that asked (or noticed) such a thing. I was
quite intrigued by it myself as I never thought of such implications.
With my ASF hat on, I would say because it's so natural that we'll give
credit when due, that we didn't even think to specify it in such a
contract. But I did not write it nor I was part of its writing, so I
can't speak for them.
> It, and its social and moral implications (and the same for the possible
> answers) is in some ways quite intriguing...
Somebody once said that the main difference between the FSF and the ASF
philosophy is that the FSF considers a contractual obligation to give
back the code and a moral one to respect the brand while the ASF has a
contractual obligation to respect the brand and a moral one to give back
the code.
Both deeply believe in giving credits when due and before the Apache
License 2.0, it was a moral obligation.
The Apache License 2.0 somewhat makes it more contractual, with the
NOTICE file, but it's actually a byproduct, I don't think it was
intentional.
For example, we do not, ON PURPOSE, regulate at the ASF level the
@author tags: the granularity of credits giving is left unspecified and
it's something that each and every community might decide on their own,
just like day 2 day project operations.
I personally wouldn't have a problem if we modified the CLAs to say that
no matter what we'll keep credit when due, somewhere, somehow, around
the project, unless the author explicitly asks for it to be removed (I
did such a thing in JMeter and Ant, for example, because I was sick of
receiving requests for code that I wrote years ago and that I had
nothing to do with at this moment... the code was totally different but
my name was still in the @author tag).
That said, without a reason for this to change (as SableVM seems to be
easier to integrate as an external piece), it's unlikely that we'll do
it "just because", even if it makes sense.
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>> Or, potentially, the only one who has ever brought it up :-)
>
> As I said, in an earlier message, I take back my request. I do not wish
> to offend anybody. :-)
I know that your intentions were not to offend and, personally, I
wasn't, but I was perceiving a little friction building up on this camp
so I wanted to raise a warning flag.
I believe that your decision of relicensing in a compatible way it's the
best step forward because it's the most reversible situation and has
lower impact on both sides.
I also trust that once you get to know how the ASF works a little more,
you might feel less in need for contractual obligations about the
protection of your credits. But even if that is not the case and SableVM
wants to continue to have an independent and separate community, I
personally don't see any problem with that.
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Etienne Gagnon <eg...@sablevm.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Or, potentially, the only one who has ever brought it up :-)
As I said, in an earlier message, I take back my request. I do not wish
to offend anybody. :-)
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:05:11PM -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 3) not having ownership does not effect the ability for the ASF to
> create successful and perpetual open development efforts around such
> code. The owner cannot stop the ASF from continuing the effort unless it
> violates the contract that was signed with the CLA. Given the broad
> spectrum of rights that the CLA gives to the ASF.
>
> 4) copyright statements and giving credits are two different things
> and I think it's wise to keep them separate.
>
> 5) the ASF considers it a moral obligation to give credit when due,
> not a contractual one. In 10 years, Etienne is the only one who had a
> problem with this.
Or, potentially, the only one who has ever brought it up :-)
> It is reasonable for him to ask for such an
> obligation to be contractual and not just moral, yet it is also
> reasonable (and predictable) for some ASF members to feel insulted by
> such a request.
Hadn't actually thought of it in those terms just yet (and guessing at
other people's opinions is always hard), but yeah, I can very much
imagine things like that. Hmm.
How confident are you this is the first time the question has been asked?
It, and its social and moral implications (and the same for the possible
answers) is in some ways quite intriguing...
- LSD
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 12:05:11PM -0800, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> >
> >Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >>>Leo Simons wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>, that that can
> >>>>>lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
> >>>>>modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
> >>>>>say in
> >>>>>it.
> >>>>
> >>>>No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at
> >>>>a minimum
> >>>>have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
> >>>>then apache
> >>>>would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
> >>>>license, and
> >>>>what that means is rather clear.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
> >>>out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of
> >>>a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
> >>
> >>No.
> >
> >I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a license
> > from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee, so I would
> >guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a say on what
> >a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
>
> no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you
> can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under
> different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a
> OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.
>
> >I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
>
> The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going
> wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
>
> Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage
> dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
We're all in violent agreement here.
My past discussions on the subject with Etienne Gagnon and to some
extent Gregorz Prokopski lead me to believe that they did up to a few
weeks ago believe to own the usage dynamics of their code, i.e. held
running (for example) ASF's software on GPL'd VMs to be copyright
infringement if such VMs linked to more liberally (i.e. LGPL,
GPL+linking exception, ASLv2, BSD, ...) licensed code they held
copyrights to.
That was the reason we avoided mixing our code in the past.
If Etienne and Grzegorz now indeed interpret the ASL2's provisions
regarding the boundaries of what consititutes a derivative work in the
same way as we do, i.e. linking to a module does not cause the code to
be a derivative work, i.e. no shared copyright outside the part
contributed to the ASF, then that's excellent news.
I would love to be able to link to Etienne's and Grzegorz's code in
Apache Harmony without exposing my users to ligitation risks, or claims
that they are doing something illegal by running ant or Eclipse on
their VM.
>
> If not, hell, it would be a perpetual lock-in situation.
>
> So, in short:
>
> 1) the ASF is not asking for copyright transfer, so "submarine
> copyright holders" are all over the place (I'm one too, I own code in so
> many java projects I can't even count them, and I wasn't working for
> anybody so that is definitely my code).
>
> 2) not having ownership simplifies donations and guarantees the
> ability for the author to do whatever he/she pleases with the code even
> after it was donated.
>
> 3) not having ownership does not effect the ability for the ASF to
> create successful and perpetual open development efforts around such
> code. The owner cannot stop the ASF from continuing the effort unless it
> violates the contract that was signed with the CLA. Given the broad
> spectrum of rights that the CLA gives to the ASF.
>
> 4) copyright statements and giving credits are two different things
> and I think it's wise to keep them separate.
>
> 5) the ASF considers it a moral obligation to give credit when due,
> not a contractual one. In 10 years, Etienne is the only one who had a
> problem with this. It is reasonable for him to ask for such an
> obligation to be contractual and not just moral, yet it is also
> reasonable (and predictable) for some ASF members to feel insulted by
> such a request.
>
I think it is a very reasonable request, as long as the intent is to
ensure that credit is given where credit is due. Etienne has done
excellent work on SableVM, and I can understand that he wants to that
work to be recognized.
If Etienne can confirm that it's all that there is to it, and claims no
copyright on VMs linking to modules containing SableVM code in the
Harmony repository, then we are done in this thread, I think.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> --
> Stefano.
>
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
To be really clear, because I can see room for misunderstanding - my
mental context for this is the larger scope regarding how contributors
retain rights.
Therefore I do think that a copyright holder has a say in a VM using
Harmony's modules insofar that the copyright holders contribution is
involved, and further, the license of VM doesn't respect the terms under
which the copyright holder licensed the contribution to the creator of
said VM.
I hope that's clearer.
geir
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> , that that can
>>>>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
>>>>>>> say in
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would
>>>>>> at a minimum
>>>>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
>>>>>> then apache
>>>>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
>>>>>> license, and
>>>>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell
>>>>> it out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the
>>>>> license of a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a
>>> license from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee,
>>> so I would guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have
>>> a say on what a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
>>
>> no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you
>> can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under
>> different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a
>> OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.
>
> I wasn't suggesting that you could revoke it.
>
> My thoughts were along the lines of what the apache license says - that
> each contributor gives each recipient some rights for their contribution
> according to the terms of the license.
>
> If a recipient does not follow the terms of the license, what prevents
> any of the contributors from taking action, since the license is between
> each contributor and the recipient. The ASF is *a* contributor too, and
> therefore can take action because we have standing, but why can't each
> each contributor act independently if the terms of the license are
> violated for their particular contribution?
>
>>
>>> I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
>>
>> The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going
>> wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
>>
>> Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage
>> dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
>>
>
> Except if the terms of the license under which you provided the code
> aren't followed, right?
>
> geir
>
>
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> , that that can
>>>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
>>>>>> say in
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would
>>>>> at a minimum
>>>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
>>>>> then apache
>>>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
>>>>> license, and
>>>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
>>>> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license
>>>> of a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a
>> license from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee,
>> so I would guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a
>> say on what a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
>
> no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you
> can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under
> different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a
> OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.
I wasn't suggesting that you could revoke it.
My thoughts were along the lines of what the apache license says - that
each contributor gives each recipient some rights for their contribution
according to the terms of the license.
If a recipient does not follow the terms of the license, what prevents
any of the contributors from taking action, since the license is between
each contributor and the recipient. The ASF is *a* contributor too, and
therefore can take action because we have standing, but why can't each
each contributor act independently if the terms of the license are
violated for their particular contribution?
>
>> I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
>
> The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going
> wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
>
> Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage
> dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
>
Except if the terms of the license under which you provided the code
aren't followed, right?
geir
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>>
>>>>> , that that can
>>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
>>>>> say in
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at
>>>> a minimum
>>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
>>>> then apache
>>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
>>>> license, and
>>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
>>> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of
>>> a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>>
>> No.
>
> I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a license
> from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee, so I would
> guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a say on what
> a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
no, hold it, this is not true. Once you give a perpetual license, you
can't revoke it. If you own some code, you can relicense it under
different conditions, but since the license that you had before was a
OSI license it gives other the ability to fork.
> I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
The ability to fork is what saves users from copyright holders going
wacko and changing the license in 'less then open source'.
Which means that you might own some code, but you don't own its usage
dynamics once you enter an OSI/free-software licensing scheme.
If not, hell, it would be a perpetual lock-in situation.
So, in short:
1) the ASF is not asking for copyright transfer, so "submarine
copyright holders" are all over the place (I'm one too, I own code in so
many java projects I can't even count them, and I wasn't working for
anybody so that is definitely my code).
2) not having ownership simplifies donations and guarantees the
ability for the author to do whatever he/she pleases with the code even
after it was donated.
3) not having ownership does not effect the ability for the ASF to
create successful and perpetual open development efforts around such
code. The owner cannot stop the ASF from continuing the effort unless it
violates the contract that was signed with the CLA. Given the broad
spectrum of rights that the CLA gives to the ASF.
4) copyright statements and giving credits are two different things
and I think it's wise to keep them separate.
5) the ASF considers it a moral obligation to give credit when due,
not a contractual one. In 10 years, Etienne is the only one who had a
problem with this. It is reasonable for him to ask for such an
obligation to be contractual and not just moral, yet it is also
reasonable (and predictable) for some ASF members to feel insulted by
such a request.
--
Stefano.
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>>> , that that can
>>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a
>>>> say in
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at
>>> a minimum
>>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
>>> then apache
>>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
>>> license, and
>>> what that means is rather clear.
>>>
>>
>> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
>> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of
>> a VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>
> No.
I thought about this for a second more - the apache license is a license
from each contributor of their contribution to the licensee, so I
would guess that yes, any contributor could hypothetically have a say on
what a licensee does w/in the boundaries of their contribution.
I dunno. I am not a lawyer, and I'm really tired :)
geir
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>>> , that that can
>>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
>>> it.
>>
>> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a
>> minimum
>> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and
>> then apache
>> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache
>> license, and
>> what that means is rather clear.
>>
>
> It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
> out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of a
> VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
No.
>
>>> I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's
>>> license's effects has been explained to me by some SableVM developers
>>> as a possible consequence of using SableVM's code in the past
>>
>> I have no idea what "Kaffe's license's effects" means.
>
> Some SableVM developers have asserted in the past that running some
> applications on top of a GPLd VM constitutes a crime, which could be
> avoided by using SableVM, rather than other VMs.
I think the crime was putting a VM under the GPL ;)
>
> That was due to an unfortunate misinterpretation of the actual effect of
> the GPL, which had the even more unfortunate side effect that some
> people have blown it way out of proportion, and waged a campaign against
> distributors of GPLd VMs, their users and packagers for over two years.
> It was not very pleasant while it lasted.
>
> I would very much like to avoid that Harmony's downstream users have to
> go through the same time wasting ordeal over and over again, that
> various people outside of SbaleVM went through a few times. Having
> submarine copyright holders on VMs using Harmony's VM modules or class
> libraries would be a pretty bad thing.
>
Huh? People don't *assign* copyright to the ASF, they grant a license to
their work.
So *all* software that you get from the ASF certainly has "submarine
copyright holders" in the sense that it is possible that one or more
people do own the copyright for any given piece of code.
But you don't care, because it's licensed to you under the terms of the
Apache License.
> The requested changes sound to me like asking for shared copyright in
> all VMs using Harmony's modules, and I just want to know if that is the
> case, or not. Preferrably from the people asking for those changes. :)
We don't care. There is shared copyright on all of this. Right?
gier
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>> , that that can
>> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
>> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
>> it.
>
> No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a minimum
> have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and then apache
> would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache license, and
> what that means is rather clear.
>
It's not clear at all to me from reading the ASL2, so let's spell it
out: Would such a hypothetical developer have a say in the license of a
VM using Harmony's modules or not? Cliff?
>> I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's license's effects
>> has been explained to me by some SableVM developers as a possible consequence
>> of using SableVM's code in the past
>
> I have no idea what "Kaffe's license's effects" means.
Some SableVM developers have asserted in the past that running some
applications on top of a GPLd VM constitutes a crime, which could be
avoided by using SableVM, rather than other VMs.
That was due to an unfortunate misinterpretation of the actual effect of
the GPL, which had the even more unfortunate side effect that some
people have blown it way out of proportion, and waged a campaign against
distributors of GPLd VMs, their users and packagers for over two years.
It was not very pleasant while it lasted.
I would very much like to avoid that Harmony's downstream users have to
go through the same time wasting ordeal over and over again, that
various people outside of SbaleVM went through a few times. Having
submarine copyright holders on VMs using Harmony's VM modules or class
libraries would be a pretty bad thing.
The requested changes sound to me like asking for shared copyright in
all VMs using Harmony's modules, and I just want to know if that is the
case, or not. Preferrably from the people asking for those changes. :)
> Honestly, the IP trail for
> kaffe is at best incomprehensible to most mortals, so I can somehow imagine lots
> of room for disagreement :-).
Given that it's the oldest active free software VM, with an active,
collaborative, transparent development community going back to 1996,
I don't think there are any questions regarding Kaffe's development
history.
It's all been done out there in the open, afaict.
> The apache license is a rather nice license. If you trust it to be valid, and that
> all the people applying it apply it properly, and you yourself apply it properly,
> then there is not so much room for different interpretation or confusion as there
> is for (for example) GPLv2, and hence not so much chance of getting sued.
Most license stewards try leave very little room for confusion in their
licenses, be it FSF, ASF, or anyone else. There is as little room for
confusion in the GPL as is in the ASL2. Both work pretty much the same
way, they only differ in the scope of how much of an author's rights
they chose to pass on, under which specific conditions, and some small
details, like using a lawyer-friendly vs. rest-of-us-friendly terminology.
Other than that, it's all the same thing: the let you use works, modify,
lern from, pass them on freely, and have fun, based on copyright law.
At least from where I stand. :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 01:57:51PM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 01:12:33PM -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> > Dalibor,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:46:16AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:32:19AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > > > 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> > > > signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> > > > it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> > > > authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> > > > under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> > > > of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> > > > found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> > > > come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> > > > off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> > > > you wish me to do so.]
> > >
> > > Is the intent that you want to be able to claim copyright on VMs linking
> > > to Harmony's VM modules?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > Regardless of intent (something I can't answer for obviously), how would that
> > possibly be a valid claim? Attribution of A with regard to X is not in any
> > way related to copyright of A with regard to Y, right?
>
> Sure, but that's something a downstream user wouldn't want to have to court
> over, if they can avoid it.
Of course.
> If a downstream user ends up using a module from
> Harmony in their VM, and if some SableVM developer regards such use as creating
> a derivative work, that he has a shared copyright in
This is not a completely unlikely situation.
> , that that can
> lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
> modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
> it.
No I would say that it cannot, since that sablevm developer would at a minimum
have licensed the software under the apache license to apache, and then apache
would have licensed that software to the end user under the apache license, and
what that means is rather clear.
The only thing this hypothetical sablevm developer could do is complain that the
license under which he licensed the code is not followed, but in that case it would
probably be much much more productive to go and talk to the ASF directly. If the
sablevm developer was right, obviously that would be very annoying to the end user
as well as for the ASF, but still not all that confusing.
> I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's license's effects
> has been explained to me by some SableVM developers as a possible consequence
> of using SableVM's code in the past
I have no idea what "Kaffe's license's effects" means. Honestly, the IP trail for
kaffe is at best incomprehensible to most mortals, so I can somehow imagine lots
of room for disagreement :-). In any case, the IP trail for harmony should be
somewhat simpler.
>, so we have avoided using their code
> to protect our end users and distributors from potential lawsuits. I'd
> like to be able to use code in Harmony without fear of being dragged to court
> for copyright infringement, if I interpret the license on my own code
> differently from some SableVM developer, no matter which license it is.
Me too. While in some ways there is always fear of being dragged to court (since
for example patents exist), our explicit goal has always been that you won't be
infringing on copyrights with regard to harmony distributions if you comply with
the terms of the apache license (and perhaps some other applicable ones, but I
think so far the applicable ones will be subsets of the apache license), and you
need not fear that you will.
The apache license is a rather nice license. If you trust it to be valid, and that
all the people applying it apply it properly, and you yourself apply it properly,
then there is not so much room for different interpretation or confusion as there
is for (for example) GPLv2, and hence not so much chance of getting sued.
cheers,
Leo
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 01:12:33PM -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> Dalibor,
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:46:16AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:32:19AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > > 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> > > signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> > > it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> > > authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> > > under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> > > of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> > > found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> > > come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> > > off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> > > you wish me to do so.]
> >
> > Is the intent that you want to be able to claim copyright on VMs linking
> > to Harmony's VM modules?
>
> Huh?
>
> Regardless of intent (something I can't answer for obviously), how would that
> possibly be a valid claim? Attribution of A with regard to X is not in any
> way related to copyright of A with regard to Y, right?
Sure, but that's something a downstream user wouldn't want to have to court
over, if they can avoid it. If a downstream user ends up using a module from
Harmony in their VM, and if some SableVM developer regards such use as creating
a derivative work, that he has a shared copyright in, that that can
lead to no end of confusion over the actual license of a VM using
modules from Harmony, if the SableVM developer believes to have a say in
it.
I'm asking since going to court over disagreement of Kaffe's license's effects
has been explained to me by some SableVM developers as a possible consequence
of using SableVM's code in the past, so we have avoided using their code
to protect our end users and distributors from potential lawsuits. I'd
like to be able to use code in Harmony without fear of being dragged to court
for copyright infringement, if I interpret the license on my own code
differently from some SableVM developer, no matter which license it is.
cheers,
dalibor topic
> Leo *scratches head a lot these days* Simons
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
Dalibor,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 09:46:16AM -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:32:19AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> > 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> > signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> > it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> > authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> > under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> > of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> > found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> > come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> > off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> > you wish me to do so.]
>
> Is the intent that you want to be able to claim copyright on VMs linking
> to Harmony's VM modules?
Huh?
Regardless of intent (something I can't answer for obviously), how would that
possibly be a valid claim? Attribution of A with regard to X is not in any
way related to copyright of A with regard to Y, right?
Leo *scratches head a lot these days* Simons
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Dalibor Topic <ro...@kaffe.org>.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:32:19AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> I started replying to your email, suggesting modifications to the ICLA
> that would address my concerns. As this would probably lead to a very
> long license thread, I erased it, and I am proposing a simpler solution.
>
> I am proposing that we strictly abide by the advertised Apache Harmony
> Contribution Policy at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html
> but, we add one additional condition that must be met by the ASF, and we
> add an explicit mention of it on signed ICLAs:
>
> 1- Current and future SableVM contributors sign the ICLA for
> contributing patches and possibly gaining commit rights.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> 2- Also, contributors must complete the Authorized Contributor
> Questionnaire and submit to the Harmony PMC.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/auth_cont_quest.html
>
> 3- I sign a Software Grant license (with the authorization of the
> appropriate SableVM authors to do so) for each bulk contribution.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> 4- I fill a Bulk Contribution Checklist for each bulk contribution.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>
> 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> you wish me to do so.]
Is the intent that you want to be able to claim copyright on VMs linking
to Harmony's VM modules?
cheers,
dalibor topic
>
> 6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
> to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
> ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
> records and our records.
>
>
> I sincerely think that the above should be acceptable to all parties
> involved. SableVM authors would end up strictly abiding by the existing
> contribution policy, yet the ASF would be providing us with the security
> we require to acknowledge our contributions.
>
> See below for a short comment.
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >>So, for example, the ASF could sublicense
> >>derivatives of our work under any license it wants, without even
> >>acknowledging our contribution in a NOTICE file.
> >
> > "When hell freezes over..."
>
> As far as I know, the ASF has no power to control US federal and state
> governments. So, the ASF cannot assure me that US laws will never
> change in the next millennium (you never know how long the US government
> will extend copyright, given Disney's lobbying) as to allow Microsoft or
> any such party to gain control on the ASF, possibly after a bankrupt or
> something similar. It is very difficult to predict the future of any
> corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
>
> [Of course, the US government can also adopt laws that invalidate
> written contracts...]
>
>
> Hoping that my proposal above is acceptable to all.
>
> Etienne
> PS: It seems we're getting down to the "real" stuff... heh.
>
> --
> Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
> SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
> SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Etienne Gagnon <eg...@sablevm.org>.
Hi Geir,
>> If SableVM hosted an Apache License 2.0 on http://sablevm.org , then
>> Harmony could regularly import that code (and modifications) into its
>> repository.[...]
...
>> SableVM could also import back Harmony modifications in its svn, [...]
...
> Yes, that's true.... but it would run afoul of our concerns for IP
> provenance. I'd be against this.
Oh, yes! I should have thought about this. It would effectively make
things much harder, trying to recover history across two repositories.
My recent experience tracing back all contributions within a single
repository with 4800+ revisions was painful enough (this doesn't even
begin to describe the real feeling).
>> Advantages:
>>...
>> - It is much easier to get Sun's TCK blessing a complete J2SE
>> implementation, than having to build the J2SE from distinct, separate
>> pieces (i.e. Harmony libs, SableVM vm, other downloadable separately
>> pieces.)
>
> That's not true. There is no requirement in the TCK license for any
> such thing.
Interesting. I had not realized this. I thought that Harmony was
looking to certify an "all Harmony/Apache" system.
If it is OK to work towards certifying a combined system, then it would
be much better, in order to keep a clear IP trail of SableVM, if all of
its development happened in a single repository: user-targeted VM
development in trunk and research development in sandboxes. My previous
vision of "user-targeted VM in Harmony svn" and "research in SableVM
svn" would actually be an IP trail nightmare.
> You are mixing apples and oranges, I think. The ASF could switch to the
> BSD and still require the ICLA and SG. The serve different purposes.
I think Stefano and explained my thought clearly [ much better than I
did :-) ]: The ICLA is very (or ultimately?) permissive to the ASF.
The BSD/MIT/... licenses are more restrictive to the ASF.
While talking of it... I take back my request for a document signed by
ASF officers; I certainly don't want anybody to feel insulted. It has
never been my intention to offend anybody, and certainly not the ASF!
> I'm not giving up, but if in the end we can't make ends meet, SableVM
> can stay put, and with the license change, be included in certified
> distributions of Apache Harmony.
Actually, your latest proposal seems very attractive. Combined with the
earlier IP trail concerns, it seems to me like the easiest and fastest
road to fruitful collaboration. :-)
Cheers,
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>> simple = good :-)
>
> :-)
>
>> In any case, if an ASF officer needs to sign legal paperwork that is
>> unlike anything the ASF has ever signed before, you'll immediately notice
>> a slowdown of all processes since all of a sudden things drop out of
>> "internet time". This makes me instinctively dislike any process that
>> requires official action by an ASF officer.
>
> OK. Then we have to find a different solution than going through ICLA/SG.
>
> If SableVM hosted an Apache License 2.0 on http://sablevm.org , then
> Harmony could regularly import that code (and modifications) into its
> repository. This would be identical to reusing someone else's BSD or
> MIT licensed code, which Harmony already does.
Yes, that's true.... but it would run afoul of our concerns for IP
provenance. I'd be against this.
>
> SableVM could also import back Harmony modifications in its svn, so that
> both projects keep a synchronized code base, avoiding an unnecessary fork.
We'll, it would be a fork. A weird, "binar" fork, but a fork nonetheless.
And one that I think would fail over time, because we wouldn't be
working together as one community. We'd never make the hard decisions -
we'd probably each decide to punt and "just do it in our repository".
>
> Advantages:
>
> - Harmony can still ship as a single, complete piece of software
> including sablevm or parts of it, providing a complete J2SE 5.0
> implementation under AL2 license.
>
> - It is much easier to get Sun's TCK blessing a complete J2SE
> implementation, than having to build the J2SE from distinct, separate
> pieces (i.e. Harmony libs, SableVM vm, other downloadable separately
> pieces.)
That's not true. There is no requirement in the TCK license for any
such thing.
>
> - Increase cross-project collaboration, without the need for double
> registration of contributors to both project.
>
> - Still allows for mix and matching JCHEVM and SableVM code, as all is
> license compatible.
>
>>> It is very difficult to predict the future of any
>>> corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
>> I am happy to predict though that neither Disney nor Microsoft gain control
>> over the ASF in the next millenium. It seems a safer bet than the weather :)
>
> I predict the same; yet I know very few people that can truely claim
> 100% accurate predictions 1000 years in advance...
>
>>> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
>>
>> Ok. Never licensed anything under the BSD license, have you? :-)
>
> BSD still forces you to include the copyright and license notice. This
> is much stricter than the ICLA/SG. :-)
?
You are mixing apples and oranges, I think. The ASF could switch to the
BSD and still require the ICLA and SG. The serve different purposes.
And notice how people have moved away from the notice requirements of
classic BSD, mainly because it's a royal pain.
>
> So, how about this new, more modest, yet hopefully simple proposal?
I'm not giving up, but if in the end we can't make ends meet, SableVM
can stay put, and with the license change, be included in certified
distributions of Apache Harmony.
geir
>
> Etienne
>
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Etienne Gagnon <eg...@sablevm.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> simple = good :-)
:-)
> In any case, if an ASF officer needs to sign legal paperwork that is
> unlike anything the ASF has ever signed before, you'll immediately notice
> a slowdown of all processes since all of a sudden things drop out of
> "internet time". This makes me instinctively dislike any process that
> requires official action by an ASF officer.
OK. Then we have to find a different solution than going through ICLA/SG.
If SableVM hosted an Apache License 2.0 on http://sablevm.org , then
Harmony could regularly import that code (and modifications) into its
repository. This would be identical to reusing someone else's BSD or
MIT licensed code, which Harmony already does.
SableVM could also import back Harmony modifications in its svn, so that
both projects keep a synchronized code base, avoiding an unnecessary fork.
Advantages:
- Harmony can still ship as a single, complete piece of software
including sablevm or parts of it, providing a complete J2SE 5.0
implementation under AL2 license.
- It is much easier to get Sun's TCK blessing a complete J2SE
implementation, than having to build the J2SE from distinct, separate
pieces (i.e. Harmony libs, SableVM vm, other downloadable separately
pieces.)
- Increase cross-project collaboration, without the need for double
registration of contributors to both project.
- Still allows for mix and matching JCHEVM and SableVM code, as all is
license compatible.
>>It is very difficult to predict the future of any
>>corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
>
> I am happy to predict though that neither Disney nor Microsoft gain control
> over the ASF in the next millenium. It seems a safer bet than the weather :)
I predict the same; yet I know very few people that can truely claim
100% accurate predictions 1000 years in advance...
>> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
>
>
> Ok. Never licensed anything under the BSD license, have you? :-)
BSD still forces you to include the copyright and license notice. This
is much stricter than the ICLA/SG. :-)
So, how about this new, more modest, yet hopefully simple proposal?
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon, Ph.D. http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~egagnon/
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:32:19AM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> I started replying to your email, suggesting modifications to the ICLA
> that would address my concerns. As this would probably lead to a very
> long license thread, I erased it, and I am proposing a simpler solution.
simple = good :-)
> I am proposing that we strictly abide by the advertised Apache Harmony
> Contribution Policy at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html
> but, we add one additional condition that must be met by the ASF, and we
> add an explicit mention of it on signed ICLAs:
>
> 1- Current and future SableVM contributors sign the ICLA for
> contributing patches and possibly gaining commit rights.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> 2- Also, contributors must complete the Authorized Contributor
> Questionnaire and submit to the Harmony PMC.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/auth_cont_quest.html
>
> 3- I sign a Software Grant license (with the authorization of the
> appropriate SableVM authors to do so) for each bulk contribution.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> 4- I fill a Bulk Contribution Checklist for each bulk contribution.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>
> 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> you wish me to do so.]
Interesting. I'm rather sure the ASF has never done something like that
before. As soon as it comes to "official" or "legally binding" I tend to
try and gracefully bow out of any discussion.
> 6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
> to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
> ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
> records and our records.
>
> I sincerely think that the above should be acceptable to all parties
> involved.
I can imagine so but realistically I have no clue.
> SableVM authors would end up strictly abiding by the existing
> contribution policy, yet the ASF would be providing us with the security
> we require to acknowledge our contributions.
In any case, if an ASF officer needs to sign legal paperwork that is
unlike anything the ASF has ever signed before, you'll immediately notice
a slowdown of all processes since all of a sudden things drop out of
"internet time". This makes me instinctively dislike any process that
requires official action by an ASF officer.
> See below for a short comment.
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >>So, for example, the ASF could sublicense
> >>derivatives of our work under any license it wants, without even
> >>acknowledging our contribution in a NOTICE file.
> >
> > "When hell freezes over..."
>
> As far as I know, the ASF has no power to control US federal and state
> governments. So, the ASF cannot assure me that US laws will never
> change in the next millennium (you never know how long the US government
> will extend copyright, given Disney's lobbying) as to allow Microsoft or
> any such party to gain control on the ASF, possibly after a bankrupt or
> something similar.
No, indeed it cannot.
> It is very difficult to predict the future of any
> corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
I am happy to predict though that neither Disney nor Microsoft gain control
over the ASF in the next millenium. It seems a safer bet than the weather :)
> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
Ok. Never licensed anything under the BSD license, have you? :-)
> [Of course, the US government can also adopt laws that invalidate
> written contracts...]
Don't get me started on the things the US government feels it can do...
> Hoping that my proposal above is acceptable to all.
>
> Etienne
> PS: It seems we're getting down to the "real" stuff... heh.
Yeah looks like it!
- Leo
Re: SableVM? -- ICLA details
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Sorry about the delay. Traveling.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
> I am proposing that we strictly abide by the advertised Apache Harmony
> Contribution Policy at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/contribution_policy.html
> but, we add one additional condition that must be met by the ASF, and we
> add an explicit mention of it on signed ICLAs:
>
> 1- Current and future SableVM contributors sign the ICLA for
> contributing patches and possibly gaining commit rights.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> 2- Also, contributors must complete the Authorized Contributor
> Questionnaire and submit to the Harmony PMC.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/auth_cont_quest.html
>
> 3- I sign a Software Grant license (with the authorization of the
> appropriate SableVM authors to do so) for each bulk contribution.
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> 4- I fill a Bulk Contribution Checklist for each bulk contribution.
> http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>
> 5- The ASF provides me with an official, legally binding document,
> signed by officers that have sufficient rights to do so, stating that
> it will only sub-license (distribute, etc.) code contributed by SableVM
> authors (can be identified specifically) and derivatives of this code,
> under licenses that require explicit acknowledgment of the copyright
> of these authors and that require redistribution of the related text
> found in the NOTICE file. [I have no trouble letting the ASF lawyers
> come up with some text proposal. I would highly suggest reusing words
> off the Apache License 2.0 to do so. I can even propose some text, if
> you wish me to do so.]
>
> 6- Each ICLA and Software Grant has an explicit hand written reference
> to the ASF document in "5-" beside the signature(s). A copy of the
> ASF document in "5-" is added as an appendix to the ICLA/SG in your
> records and our records.
>
To be frank, I am not in favor of this 5 and 6.
I wouldn't support giving any subset of our contributors a special
treatment like this. How could we say no to any other contributor that
asked for the same consideration?
>
> I sincerely think that the above should be acceptable to all parties
> involved. SableVM authors would end up strictly abiding by the existing
> contribution policy, yet the ASF would be providing us with the security
> we require to acknowledge our contributions.
*We* would have that acknowledgment here at Apache Harmony, but I tend
to be uninterested in forcing downstream recipients to do things.
Please don't take this as dismissive of your concerns - I too am proud
of the work that I do, and like anyone else, don't mind recognition.
>
> See below for a short comment.
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>> So, for example, the ASF could sublicense
>>> derivatives of our work under any license it wants, without even
>>> acknowledging our contribution in a NOTICE file.
>> "When hell freezes over..."
>
> As far as I know, the ASF has no power to control US federal and state
> governments. So, the ASF cannot assure me that US laws will never
> change in the next millennium (you never know how long the US government
> will extend copyright, given Disney's lobbying) as to allow Microsoft or
> any such party to gain control on the ASF, possibly after a bankrupt or
> something similar. It is very difficult to predict the future of any
> corporation, be it a private, public, profit or non-profit organization.
> So, I feel very, very uncomfortable to give a blank check to anybody.
>
> [Of course, the US government can also adopt laws that invalidate
> written contracts...]
>
So here's my concern. The ASF as foundation acts in the best interests
of it's charter, which IMO has implicit considerations for the community
surrounding our codebases.
I trust the ASF to do the right thing.
Here's a totally hypothetical example - suppose the law changed, either
explicitly or via caselaw, that put any entity (individuals or company)
listed in documentation with a software product in some kind of legal
risk or jeopardy. I can just imagine the "Responisiblity in Software
Act" or some other such foolishness.
The ASF would act, changing policy and license to protect the developers.
A suggestion like yours would tie their hands or seriously complicate it.
I guess I need to re-read through this so I can be sure I understand
where you are coming from.
geir
>
> Hoping that my proposal above is acceptable to all.
>
> Etienne
> PS: It seems we're getting down to the "real" stuff... heh.
>