License of unmerged contributions [Was: Status of code licensed to the ASF but not submitted to the ASF]

[Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>]

A related question is:

What is the license of software contributed to Apache but not accepted by
Apache. For example a patch on JIRA or pull request on GitHub that has not
yet been merged.

Apache 2.0 says:

"*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. Notwithstanding the above,
nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license
agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions."

Does Apache take a blanket position that any patch contributed to Apache
which is licensed to Apache under Apache 2.0 (per clause 5), is also
licensed by Apache to everyone else?

Hen


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:

> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 10/3/17 5:22 AM:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> ...Out of curiosity, what is the legal status of code that is declared
> as
> >> 'Licensed to the ASF' but hosted in other repositories?...
> >
> > I suspect that mostly happens when people copy our license headers in
> > their code, without paying attention to that statement.
>
> Similarly, the ASF can't give you legal advice, and certainly not about
> code that's not in an Apache repository.
>
> If it's in an Apache repository (our SVN or our github organization)
> then it should have a clear LICENSE and NOTICE for the Apache project as
> a whole clearly showing what licenses different files are under.
>
> Otherwise, it's best to assume there's no specific legal status between
> any code or license you find on the internet and the ASF itself.
> Anything the ASF manages will be explicitly on our domain or
> organizational ownership.
>
> --
>
> - Shane
>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Re: License of unmerged contributions [Was: Status of code licensed to the ASF but not submitted to the ASF]

[Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>]

Thanks Bill.

I'm not convinced. While Licensor is any one who has contributed into our
project, clause 5 is about the specific Licensor that the patch submitter
has intentionally submitted to. I may personally have copyright in Apache
XYZ, but the submission is to the ASF, not to me personally.

In clause 5 a new Apache license is created. The Licensor in this new
instance is the patch submitter (and any others owning copyright under
apache license in it), while the licensee is one of the original licenses'
Licensors; i.e. The target of the intentional submission.

[As a side note; this suggests clause 5 only applies when submitting to a
distributor who has a copyright interest in the work, not an unmodifying
redistributor.]

That original Licensor (the target) has the rights to distribute further
under license. We could say that when Apache makes that patch available in
JIRA that we're exercising that right, and presumably we could extend that
to GitHub (not our platform but hosted on our behalf).

Or, perhaps more clearly, the ASF could say that it automatically offers up
any patch licensed to it under clause 5 under Apache license to all others
and not just itself.

Hen


On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 09:41 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> Broader question.
>
> Reading the reflexive property of a contribution under Apache License
> 2.0 spelled out in 5., back to the Licensor (Apache or otherwise),
> "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the
> copyright owner that is granting the License and "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.
>
> It is the act of submission, not the act of acceptance, that is spelled
> out.
>
> And under that act of submission, 2. applies...
>
> 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
> copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
> display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and
> such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
>
> License given, work submitted. Perhaps it is accepted by a project,
> perhaps it persists as a patch, perhaps it becomes the genesis of a
> fork. It doesn't seem to matter, the contributed work is AL 2.0.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > A related question is:
> >
> > What is the license of software contributed to Apache but not accepted by
> > Apache. For example a patch on JIRA or pull request on GitHub that has
> not
> > yet been merged.
> >
> > Apache 2.0 says:
> >
> > "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. Notwithstanding the above, nothing
> > herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license
> agreement
> > you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions."
> >
> > Does Apache take a blanket position that any patch contributed to Apache
> > which is licensed to Apache under Apache 2.0 (per clause 5), is also
> > licensed by Apache to everyone else?
> >
> > Hen
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 10/3/17 5:22 AM:
> >> > Hi Robert,
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> ...Out of curiosity, what is the legal status of code that is
> declared
> >> >> as
> >> >> 'Licensed to the ASF' but hosted in other repositories?...
> >> >
> >> > I suspect that mostly happens when people copy our license headers in
> >> > their code, without paying attention to that statement.
> >>
> >> Similarly, the ASF can't give you legal advice, and certainly not about
> >> code that's not in an Apache repository.
> >>
> >> If it's in an Apache repository (our SVN or our github organization)
> >> then it should have a clear LICENSE and NOTICE for the Apache project as
> >> a whole clearly showing what licenses different files are under.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, it's best to assume there's no specific legal status between
> >> any code or license you find on the internet and the ASF itself.
> >> Anything the ASF manages will be explicitly on our domain or
> >> organizational ownership.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> - Shane
> >>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Re: License of unmerged contributions [Was: Status of code licensed to the ASF but not submitted to the ASF]

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Broader question.

Reading the reflexive property of a contribution under Apache License
2.0 spelled out in 5., back to the Licensor (Apache or otherwise),
"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the
copyright owner that is granting the License and "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.

It is the act of submission, not the act of acceptance, that is spelled out.

And under that act of submission, 2. applies...

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and
such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

License given, work submitted. Perhaps it is accepted by a project,
perhaps it persists as a patch, perhaps it becomes the genesis of a
fork. It doesn't seem to matter, the contributed work is AL 2.0.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> A related question is:
>
> What is the license of software contributed to Apache but not accepted by
> Apache. For example a patch on JIRA or pull request on GitHub that has not
> yet been merged.
>
> Apache 2.0 says:
>
> "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. Notwithstanding the above, nothing
> herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement
> you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions."
>
> Does Apache take a blanket position that any patch contributed to Apache
> which is licensed to Apache under Apache 2.0 (per clause 5), is also
> licensed by Apache to everyone else?
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>>
>> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 10/3/17 5:22 AM:
>> > Hi Robert,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> ...Out of curiosity, what is the legal status of code that is declared
>> >> as
>> >> 'Licensed to the ASF' but hosted in other repositories?...
>> >
>> > I suspect that mostly happens when people copy our license headers in
>> > their code, without paying attention to that statement.
>>
>> Similarly, the ASF can't give you legal advice, and certainly not about
>> code that's not in an Apache repository.
>>
>> If it's in an Apache repository (our SVN or our github organization)
>> then it should have a clear LICENSE and NOTICE for the Apache project as
>> a whole clearly showing what licenses different files are under.
>>
>> Otherwise, it's best to assume there's no specific legal status between
>> any code or license you find on the internet and the ASF itself.
>> Anything the ASF manages will be explicitly on our domain or
>> organizational ownership.
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Shane
>>   https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org