You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2008/07/01 07:18:40 UTC
Publishing the process page
I'm going to go ahead and move
http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
and onto the main set of links.
Final chance for -1s.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
i think that the readability could be improved by using more whitespace
and sections. i'm willing to draw up a patch or just dive in...
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 12:22 +0100, sebb wrote:
> "In some rare cases review-then-commit is used instead of
> commit-then-review and the patch has already been reviewed prior to
> committing."
>
> does not read well (to me).
+1
> How about:
>
> "In some rare cases review-then-commit is used instead of
> commit-then-review - in which case the patch has already been reviewed
> prior to committing."
that reads better to me
alternatively, the paragraph could be reworked. here the current:
"No matter how the code gets in, when it hits the source code repository
an email is sent out to the mailing list in charge of that repository
detailing the change. At which point the relevant Project Management
Committee (PMC) are able to review the code. In some rare cases
review-then-commit is used instead of commit-then-review and the patch
has already been reviewed prior to committing."
here's an alternative:
"Details of every change made to the source code are mailed to the
public list with resposibility. Members of the Project Management
Committee (PMC) review each change.
* When review-then-commit (RTC) is used, the change is reviewed and
approved before application
* When commit-then-review (CTR) is used, the change is reviewed after
being committed and any PMC member can trigger an active review by
challenging the commit"
==
>
> I also find this paragraph confusing:
>
> "In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
> Foundation, Apache products may include third party code..."
>
> It starts by saying that Apache products may include 3rd party code,
> and then goes on to say that some 3rd party code is not allowed.
>
> Should the first line perhaps read:
>
> "In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
> Foundation, Apache products may depend on third party code."
i agree that this is a little confusing but i suspect that this result
from a lack of clarity about two distinct use cases:
1. Apache products may depend on third party products
2. Apache products may include third party source
- robert
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 7:22 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I also find this paragraph confusing:
>
> "In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
> Foundation, Apache products may include third party code..."
>
> It starts by saying that Apache products may include 3rd party code,
> and then goes on to say that some 3rd party code is not allowed.
>
> Should the first line perhaps read:
>
> "In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
> Foundation, Apache products may depend on third party code."
Apache products may include, or merely depend on, third party code.
We include and ship code under various licenses including MIT, BSD,
CDDL and various others.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
"In some rare cases review-then-commit is used instead of
commit-then-review and the patch has already been reviewed prior to
committing."
does not read well (to me). How about:
"In some rare cases review-then-commit is used instead of
commit-then-review - in which case the patch has already been reviewed
prior to committing."
==
I also find this paragraph confusing:
"In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
Foundation, Apache products may include third party code..."
It starts by saying that Apache products may include 3rd party code,
and then goes on to say that some 3rd party code is not allowed.
Should the first line perhaps read:
"In addition to original code licensed to the Apache Software
Foundation, Apache products may depend on third party code."
S///
On 01/07/2008, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm going to go ahead and move
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
> > and onto the main set of links.
> >
> > Final chance for -1s.
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm going to go ahead and move
> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
> and onto the main set of links.
>
> Final chance for -1s.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 09/07/2008, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > and section 5;
> > >
> > > Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> > > any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
> > > by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> > > this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
> > >
> > > No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Bill, and David for bringing this up.
> >
> > So - the case is made for getting rid of the checkbox.
> >
> > Does anyone have a case for keeping the checkbox?
> >
>
> My understanding is that the checkbox is the way the contributor can
> "explicitly state otherwise".
>
> Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is *not*
> licensed to Apache?
>
+1
It also helps make clear that the attachment is "... intentionally
submitted for inclusion ..." rather than being provided as an example
or background, where the author may not expect it to appear in the
product.
> Craig
>
> >
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
I attached a patch to LEGAL-33 which adds a "Contributions" section
to the "Development Process" page to refer to the Apache License
definitions, and sets the scene for the later mention of the
issue tracker radio buttons.
---------------
+<section><title>Contributions</title>
+<p>
+Contributions are covered by the Apache License. See its clear
+<a href="/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#definitions">Definitions</a> of the terms
+"Contribution" and "Contributor" and the condition
+"<a href="/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#contributions">Submission of Contributions</a>".
+As explained there, if a submission is intended to be "Not a Contribution", then
+it needs to be conspicuously marked as such and the issue trackers provide a
+mechanism.
+</p>
+</section>
---------------
The patch has a few other minor text changes.
If i don't hear contrary comments, then i will apply it later this week.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >Craig L Russell wrote:
> >>
> >>Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is
> >>*not* licensed to Apache?
> >
> >You cut section 1, that reads in part
> >
> > excluding communication that is conspicuously marked
> > or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner
> > as "Not a Contribution."
>
> In a JIRA issue, comments, svn commits, and patches are independently
> presented. There's no specific association between a comment and a
> patch.
>
> If the patch is not specifically identified as "not a contribution"
> then what do you propose as a mechanism to associate a patch with a
> "conspicuously marked" comment "Not a Contribution"?
>
> I think it's pretty good right now that you can tell immediately that
> a patch is or is not a contribution without having to look through the
> comments and try to figure out from the comments which patches are
> intended to be contributions and which are not.
I propose this solution:
1) Fix the "Process" page so that it uses the correct
default explanation of "Contribution". Link from there
directly to those relevant Apache License sections.
Don't try to explain them too much.
2) On the Issue trackers, add a brief explanation of
"Contribution" and link to the "Process" page.
3) On the Issue trackers, have a single checkbox, which
is off by default: "Not a Contribution".
The way we curently have it is back-to-front, and so
sets the wrong impression, creates work for committers,
is generally confusing, and wastes the ultimately clear
Apache License text.
I reckon that we should encourage them to be more aware
of the License.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:14 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is
>> *not* licensed to Apache?
>
> You cut section 1, that reads in part
>
> excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
> designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a
> Contribution."
In a JIRA issue, comments, svn commits, and patches are independently
presented. There's no specific association between a comment and a
patch.
If the patch is not specifically identified as "not a contribution"
then what do you propose as a mechanism to associate a patch with a
"conspicuously marked" comment "Not a Contribution"?
I think it's pretty good right now that you can tell immediately that
a patch is or is not a contribution without having to look through the
comments and try to figure out from the comments which patches are
intended to be contributions and which are not.
Craig
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is
> *not* licensed to Apache?
You cut section 1, that reads in part
excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> and section 5;
>>
>> Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state
>> otherwise,
>> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the
>> Work
>> by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
>> this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
>>
>> No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
>
> Thanks Bill, and David for bringing this up.
>
> So - the case is made for getting rid of the checkbox.
>
> Does anyone have a case for keeping the checkbox?
My understanding is that the checkbox is the way the contributor can
"explicitly state otherwise".
Without the checkbox, how can the contributor say that the patch is
*not* licensed to Apache?
Craig
>
>
> Hen
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Thilo Goetz <tw...@gmx.de>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>> I'm going to go ahead and move
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
>>>>> and onto the main set of links.
>>>>>
>>>>> Final chance for -1s.
>>>> I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
>>>> opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
>>>> regarding how contributions are treated by default.
>>>>
>>>> I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
>>>> but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
>>>> Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
>>> My view on the matter is pretty simple - we either need the express
>>> permission or we don't. If we need it, then we should have it in both
>>> Bugzilla and JIRA. If we don't, then life gets simpler.
>>>
>>> If we need the express permission, then I prefer an enforced mechanism
>>> - ie the checkbox - to having them say it in their comment.
>>>
>>> The CLA isn't pertinent imo - the checkbox is for people who have not
>>> signed the CLA - though if a person who has signed the CLA checks
>>> 'No', then that would still apply. The license is important - if it
>>> covers us for any contributions on mailing list or issue tracker (or
>>> wiki), then I don't see the need for the checkbox, though I'm sure it
>>> makes things legally happier.
>> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>>
>> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
>> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
>> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
>> submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
>> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
>> the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
>> means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
>> to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
>> communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
>> and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
>> Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
>> excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
>> designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
>>
>> and section 5;
>>
>> Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
>> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
>> by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
>> this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
>>
>> No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
>
> Thanks Bill, and David for bringing this up.
>
> So - the case is made for getting rid of the checkbox.
>
> Does anyone have a case for keeping the checkbox?
I view the checkbox as a convenience both for users and
committers. First of all, is it reasonable to assume that
contributors have read and understood the Apache License?
When our users send a bug report to the mailing list, we
tell them to open a Jira issue and attach a test case. If they
need to tick a checkbox, they have to stop and think for a
second if what they're submitting is really theirs to
submit.
Conversely for committers, if somebody attached something
and they checked the "not for inclusion" box I can decide
to not even look at their contribution, go back to them
and say: we need a test case that we can include in our
test suite, so please reconsider. Can you simplify the
test case so that you *can* contribute it to Apache?
So I viewed it as a real improvement when we changed Jira
to force users to make a choice. I'm sure we're covered
legally even without the checkbox. Still, if the checkbox doesn't
weaken our legal case in any way, I'm for keeping it.
Just my 2 cents.
--Thilo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to go ahead and move
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
>>>> and onto the main set of links.
>>>>
>>>> Final chance for -1s.
>>>
>>> I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
>>> opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
>>> regarding how contributions are treated by default.
>>>
>>> I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
>>> but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
>>> Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
>>
>> My view on the matter is pretty simple - we either need the express
>> permission or we don't. If we need it, then we should have it in both
>> Bugzilla and JIRA. If we don't, then life gets simpler.
>>
>> If we need the express permission, then I prefer an enforced mechanism
>> - ie the checkbox - to having them say it in their comment.
>>
>> The CLA isn't pertinent imo - the checkbox is for people who have not
>> signed the CLA - though if a person who has signed the CLA checks
>> 'No', then that would still apply. The license is important - if it
>> covers us for any contributions on mailing list or issue tracker (or
>> wiki), then I don't see the need for the checkbox, though I'm sure it
>> makes things legally happier.
>
> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
> submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
> the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
> means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
> to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
> communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
> and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
> Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
> excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
> designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
>
> and section 5;
>
> Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
> by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
>
> No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
Thanks Bill, and David for bringing this up.
So - the case is made for getting rid of the checkbox.
Does anyone have a case for keeping the checkbox?
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 11:51 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to go ahead and move
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
>>>> and onto the main set of links.
>>>>
>>>> Final chance for -1s.
>>>
>>> I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
>>> opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
>>> regarding how contributions are treated by default.
>>>
>>> I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
>>> but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
>>> Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
>>
>> My view on the matter is pretty simple - we either need the express
>> permission or we don't. If we need it, then we should have it in both
>> Bugzilla and JIRA. If we don't, then life gets simpler.
>>
>> If we need the express permission, then I prefer an enforced mechanism
>> - ie the checkbox - to having them say it in their comment.
>>
>> The CLA isn't pertinent imo - the checkbox is for people who have not
>> signed the CLA - though if a person who has signed the CLA checks
>> 'No', then that would still apply. The license is important - if it
>> covers us for any contributions on mailing list or issue tracker (or
>> wiki), then I don't see the need for the checkbox, though I'm sure it
>> makes things legally happier.
>
> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
> submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
> the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
> means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
> to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
> communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
> and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
> Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
> excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
> designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
>
> and section 5;
>
> Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
> by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
>
> No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
By the same reasoning, there is no need for the ICLA or CCLA.
However, my experience is that matters like these in the scope of
legal questions are rarely so binary.
I would summarize this portion of the AL this way "You are granted a
license to do (various things) provided you agree that (among other
things) that your intentionally submitted contributions are made
available under the same license".
However unlikely, it is theoretically possible for somebody to place
code in a JIRA and not themselves do the "various things" that would
trigger this clause of the license to be in effect.
Accordingly, we are a bit conservative. At times, and based on
factors such as the size contribution and duration of the
participation, we require multiple assurances that the contribution
was intentional and voluntary.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On 11/07/2008, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2008, Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>>>>>
>>>>> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
>>>>> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
>>>>> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
>>>>> submitted to Licensor _for_inclusion_ in the Work by the copyright
>> owner
>>>>> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
>>>>> the copyright owner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Emphasis added. There are plenty of mails by users that say:
>>>> "I'm having a problem with your library, here's my code,
>>>> please tell me what I'm doing wrong." That is a submission,
>>>> but obviously not intended for inclusion - even without being
>>>> conspicuously marked. I'm not even asking whether the people
>>>> sending these mails are the copyright owners or entitled to
>>>> publish the respective code.
>>>>
>>>> I always liked the radio buttons that forced me to mark a
>>>> patch as "intended for inclusion" or not, even though I
>>>> never tested whether the other option worked :-)
>>>> There's nothing wrong with improving the wording and adding
>>>> relevant links, but I wouldn't replace the radio choice with
>>>> an opt-out checkbox.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
>>> This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
>>> the attachment.
>>>
>> It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
>> on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
>> account creation is:
>>
>> Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
>>
>> * Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
>> Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
>> Software License version 2.0.
>> * Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache
>> Software License version 2.0.
>> * Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc.,
>> that you may supply can be redistributed under the same license terms and
>> conditions as SpamAssassin itself.
>>
>> It should jut be a case of porting the SABZ changes to the main BZ - I just
>> haven't found the time to set my test environment back up.
>>
>
> That would be good, but people with existing accounts are unlikely to
> ever see the message.
They will when I delete the cookie info from the database and force
everyone to log on again ;)
> Maybe the header line:
>
> "Before reporting a bug, please read the bug writing guidelines,
> please look at the list of most frequently reported bugs, and please
> search for the bug. "
>
> could also point to the front page?
>
> Likewise, maybe the attachment page could have a pointer to the front page?
I'm loath to change more than we have to as it just generates more work for
each and every upgrade.
Personally, I am in favour of ditching all of these customizations and just
working on the basis that if someone provides a patch for an issue then it
is safe to assume that is a contribution unless they state otherwise. Why
else would anyone bother to provide a patch for an issue? That said, it
appears the consensus of opinion is to keep these additions so my aim at
the minute is to get the main BZ and SABZ aligned so I only have merge the
changes once per upgrade rather than twice.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 11/07/2008, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 11/07/2008, Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
> > > >
> > > > "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
> > > > the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
> > > > to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
> > > > submitted to Licensor _for_inclusion_ in the Work by the copyright
> owner
> > > > or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
> > > > the copyright owner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Emphasis added. There are plenty of mails by users that say:
> > > "I'm having a problem with your library, here's my code,
> > > please tell me what I'm doing wrong." That is a submission,
> > > but obviously not intended for inclusion - even without being
> > > conspicuously marked. I'm not even asking whether the people
> > > sending these mails are the copyright owners or entitled to
> > > publish the respective code.
> > >
> > > I always liked the radio buttons that forced me to mark a
> > > patch as "intended for inclusion" or not, even though I
> > > never tested whether the other option worked :-)
> > > There's nothing wrong with improving the wording and adding
> > > relevant links, but I wouldn't replace the radio choice with
> > > an opt-out checkbox.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
> > This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
> > the attachment.
> >
>
> It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
> on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
> account creation is:
>
> Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
>
> * Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
> Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
> Software License version 2.0.
> * Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache
> Software License version 2.0.
> * Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation, etc.,
> that you may supply can be redistributed under the same license terms and
> conditions as SpamAssassin itself.
>
> It should jut be a case of porting the SABZ changes to the main BZ - I just
> haven't found the time to set my test environment back up.
>
That would be good, but people with existing accounts are unlikely to
ever see the message.
Maybe the header line:
"Before reporting a bug, please read the bug writing guidelines,
please look at the list of most frequently reported bugs, and please
search for the bug. "
could also point to the front page?
Likewise, maybe the attachment page could have a pointer to the front page?
> Mark
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>> It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
>>>> This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
>>>> the attachment.
>>> It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
>>> on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
>>> account creation is:
>>>
>>> Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
>>>
>>> * Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
>>> Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
>>> Software License version 2.0.
>> That should be "Apache License". There is no such thing
>> as "Apache Software License".
>
> Of course that was the old name for the v1.1 license,
> but not for the current license.
I'll get it fixed. Thanks for spotting it.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
> > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
> > >This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
> > >the attachment.
> >
> > It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
> > on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
> > account creation is:
> >
> > Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
> >
> > * Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
> > Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
> > Software License version 2.0.
>
> That should be "Apache License". There is no such thing
> as "Apache Software License".
Of course that was the old name for the v1.1 license,
but not for the current license.
-David
> > * Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache
> > Software License version 2.0.
>
> Ditto.
>
> -David
>
> > * Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation,
> > etc., that you may supply can be redistributed under the same license terms
> > and conditions as SpamAssassin itself.
> >
> > It should jut be a case of porting the SABZ changes to the main BZ - I just
> > haven't found the time to set my test environment back up.
> >
> > Mark
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> sebb wrote:
> >
> >It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
> >This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
> >the attachment.
>
> It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
> on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
> account creation is:
>
> Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
>
> * Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
> Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
> Software License version 2.0.
That should be "Apache License". There is no such thing
as "Apache Software License".
> * Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache
> Software License version 2.0.
Ditto.
-David
> * Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation,
> etc., that you may supply can be redistributed under the same license terms
> and conditions as SpamAssassin itself.
>
> It should jut be a case of porting the SABZ changes to the main BZ - I just
> haven't found the time to set my test environment back up.
>
> Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On 11/07/2008, Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net> wrote:
>>> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>>>
>>> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
>>> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
>>> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
>>> submitted to Licensor _for_inclusion_ in the Work by the copyright owner
>>> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
>>> the copyright owner.
>>>
>> Emphasis added. There are plenty of mails by users that say:
>> "I'm having a problem with your library, here's my code,
>> please tell me what I'm doing wrong." That is a submission,
>> but obviously not intended for inclusion - even without being
>> conspicuously marked. I'm not even asking whether the people
>> sending these mails are the copyright owners or entitled to
>> publish the respective code.
>>
>> I always liked the radio buttons that forced me to mark a
>> patch as "intended for inclusion" or not, even though I
>> never tested whether the other option worked :-)
>> There's nothing wrong with improving the wording and adding
>> relevant links, but I wouldn't replace the radio choice with
>> an opt-out checkbox.
>>
>
> +1
>
> It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
> This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
> the attachment.
It is on my todo list to add some text to the main Bugzilla similar to that
on the SpamAssassin bugzilla. The text displayed on SABZ at login and
account creation is:
Please note that by logging in/creating an account here, you:
* Understand that SpamAssassin is a project of the Apache Software
Foundation and is licensed under the terms and conditions of the Apache
Software License version 2.0.
* Have read and understand the terms and conditions of the Apache
Software License version 2.0.
* Certify that any object code, source code, patch, documentation,
etc., that you may supply can be redistributed under the same license terms
and conditions as SpamAssassin itself.
It should jut be a case of porting the SABZ changes to the main BZ - I just
haven't found the time to set my test environment back up.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 11/07/2008, Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net> wrote:
> > C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
> >
> > "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
> > the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
> > to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
> > submitted to Licensor _for_inclusion_ in the Work by the copyright owner
> > or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
> > the copyright owner.
> >
>
> Emphasis added. There are plenty of mails by users that say:
> "I'm having a problem with your library, here's my code,
> please tell me what I'm doing wrong." That is a submission,
> but obviously not intended for inclusion - even without being
> conspicuously marked. I'm not even asking whether the people
> sending these mails are the copyright owners or entitled to
> publish the respective code.
>
> I always liked the radio buttons that forced me to mark a
> patch as "intended for inclusion" or not, even though I
> never tested whether the other option worked :-)
> There's nothing wrong with improving the wording and adding
> relevant links, but I wouldn't replace the radio choice with
> an opt-out checkbox.
>
+1
It would be nice if Bugzilla offered the same option.
This would make it easier for committers to know the intended use of
the attachment.
>
> > and section 5;
> >
> > Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> > any Contribution intentionally submitted _for_inclusion_ in the Work
> > by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> > this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
> >
>
> Here again: the intent of the submission is at question,
> not whether it is a submission or not.
>
> just my 0.02€,
I'll add 2p == 4.8d ;-)
> Roland
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Roland Weber <os...@dubioso.net>.
> C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
>
> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
> the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
> to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
> submitted to Licensor _for_inclusion_ in the Work by the copyright owner
> or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
> the copyright owner.
Emphasis added. There are plenty of mails by users that say:
"I'm having a problem with your library, here's my code,
please tell me what I'm doing wrong." That is a submission,
but obviously not intended for inclusion - even without being
conspicuously marked. I'm not even asking whether the people
sending these mails are the copyright owners or entitled to
publish the respective code.
I always liked the radio buttons that forced me to mark a
patch as "intended for inclusion" or not, even though I
never tested whether the other option worked :-)
There's nothing wrong with improving the wording and adding
relevant links, but I wouldn't replace the radio choice with
an opt-out checkbox.
> and section 5;
>
> Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
> any Contribution intentionally submitted _for_inclusion_ in the Work
> by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
> this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
Here again: the intent of the submission is at question,
not whether it is a submission or not.
just my 0.02€,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> I'm going to go ahead and move
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
>>> and onto the main set of links.
>>>
>>> Final chance for -1s.
>> I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
>> opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
>> regarding how contributions are treated by default.
>>
>> I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
>> but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
>> Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
>
> My view on the matter is pretty simple - we either need the express
> permission or we don't. If we need it, then we should have it in both
> Bugzilla and JIRA. If we don't, then life gets simpler.
>
> If we need the express permission, then I prefer an enforced mechanism
> - ie the checkbox - to having them say it in their comment.
>
> The CLA isn't pertinent imo - the checkbox is for people who have not
> signed the CLA - though if a person who has signed the CLA checks
> 'No', then that would still apply. The license is important - if it
> covers us for any contributions on mailing list or issue tracker (or
> wiki), then I don't see the need for the checkbox, though I'm sure it
> makes things legally happier.
C.f. AL 2.0, section 1;
"Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
and section 5;
Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
No, since the death of AL 1.1, there's no need for the checkbox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:02 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> I'm going to go ahead and move
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
>> and onto the main set of links.
>>
>> Final chance for -1s.
>
> I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
> opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
> regarding how contributions are treated by default.
>
> I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
> but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
> Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
My view on the matter is pretty simple - we either need the express
permission or we don't. If we need it, then we should have it in both
Bugzilla and JIRA. If we don't, then life gets simpler.
If we need the express permission, then I prefer an enforced mechanism
- ie the checkbox - to having them say it in their comment.
The CLA isn't pertinent imo - the checkbox is for people who have not
signed the CLA - though if a person who has signed the CLA checks
'No', then that would still apply. The license is important - if it
covers us for any contributions on mailing list or issue tracker (or
wiki), then I don't see the need for the checkbox, though I'm sure it
makes things legally happier.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
I added http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-33
to help finalise this topic and so that we have something
to refer to if the issue arises again.
As i said there:
"Even if we remain with the current back-to-front radio buttons
on our Jira, then we should have clear explanations there,
and on the new "Development Process" page."
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Publishing the process page
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> I'm going to go ahead and move
> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html out of drafts
> and onto the main set of links.
>
> Final chance for -1s.
I am not happy with item 4: about the patches process. It is the
opposite of what is declared in the CLA and the Apache License,
regarding how contributions are treated by default.
I commented on this a long time ago and again yesterday,
but perhaps it got lost in threaded mail clients:
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200807.mbox/%3c20080708041952.GE924@igg.indexgeo.com.au%3e
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org