Re: On submission of contributions clause

[Engel Nyst <en...@gmail.com>]

Hello legal-discuss,

Thank you for your answer.

On 1/31/13, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> I assume it's to stop this section clashing with the CLA. ie) Most
> contributions back to Apache are under the CLA and not the Apache 2.0
> license.

Regarding the license contributions are under, I might misunderstand
the language.

In my reading, Apache receives AL 2.0 grant from Contributor. In
addition, the CLA grant to ASF is also in action.
"Notwithstanding the above" tells me they're both in action (as they
would anyway), not that AL 2.0 is no longer granted.
>From both licenses it receives, Apache chooses the CLA grant, as a
matter of policy...

Then, if I understand correctly, the purpose of the extra phrase is to
make very clear that ASF doesn't have to follow the conditions of the
Apache License, under any circumstances.


Considering how widespread CLAs like iCLA are, in many projects
(non-Apache), and their very broad and almost unconditional grant, I
admit I find this point interesting. I wonder if the CLA-holding
entity can be reasonably expected to follow a license modified to:

> Unless You explicitly state otherwise when making the Contribution, 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.

In case the (modified) license grant clashes with the CLA license
grant, in some way, then the CLA-holding entity could be expected to
follow the (modified) license?

I understand that modifying licenses is usually not a good idea. And,
of course, I'm not asking for legal advice. Your help to figure out
better why this extra phrase was added to Apache License, and the
potential consequences of removing it, is very appreciated.

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

Re: On submission of contributions clause

[Engel Nyst <en...@gmail.com>]

On 2/4/13, Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org> wrote:
>
> Why would the CLA holding entity want that? It limits them. For example,
> GPL 2.0 projects wouldn't have been able to move to GPL 3.0.
>
> Hen
>

Thank you, point taken. An upgrade to a next (and incompatible)
version of the license is easier to do when there is an entity with
the right to unilaterally do it. (easier doesn't mean it can't be
done, I believe Mozilla has given a great example of it)

Updating the license can be done through the license itself, though:
GPL 2.0 allows to use 'any later version' to pre-emptively express
agreement for it.
Recently I've seen a tweak to this: in the license, make default the
'or later' option. It's probably a better default. (while contributors
can still remove it too)

In the latter case, I'm not sure the contributions clause needs an
addition, but if it needs added, the clause would become:

> Unless You explicitly state otherwise when making the Contribution, any Contribution
> intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the
> terms and conditions of this License, or any further versions thereof, without any additional
> terms or conditions.

Does this fixed clause address the issue of the legal entity
convenient move to GPL 3.0?


As for limiting a CLA-holding entity, GPL v2 projects are very good
examples as to why: it's easy to copy the iCLA, to use in a GPL v2
project. But by doing so, it gives the holder the unique right to make
any proprietary derivatives. Not only GPL v3.
The combination between an iCLA and GPL has the result: restrict
Contributors and users from making proprietary derivatives, while the
Licensor (CLA-holder) receives their Contributions and has the unique
right in the community, to make them proprietary. Community
contributions are not very likely to grow in such environment; and
when they do, it's arguably against their intention to have their
contribution used under proprietary licensing.


If GPL v2 had a clause like the Submissions of Contributions clause,
its purpose would be to clarify the rights of the Licensor (like the
CLA seems to want), but also the limits: clarify the expectation or
intention of Contributors that their Contribution will be included in
works inline with the license (or updated). GPL v3, perhaps; but not
proprietary.
If the Licensor doesn't have the intention anyway, this clause
provides an avenue to make that commitment... perhaps.

I wonder, what other reasons are there, to collect CLAs (thus any
sublicensing rights, with almost no conditions or commitments), as
opposed to just use the Submissions clause?

Thank you for your help, and any comments.

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

Re: On submission of contributions clause

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

On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Engel Nyst wrote:

> Hello legal-discuss,
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> On 1/31/13, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I assume it's to stop this section clashing with the CLA. ie) Most
> > contributions back to Apache are under the CLA and not the Apache 2.0
> > license.
>
> Regarding the license contributions are under, I might misunderstand
> the language.
>
> In my reading, Apache receives AL 2.0 grant from Contributor. In
> addition, the CLA grant to ASF is also in action.
> "Notwithstanding the above" tells me they're both in action (as they
> would anyway), not that AL 2.0 is no longer granted.
> From both licenses it receives, Apache chooses the CLA grant, as a
> matter of policy...
>
> Then, if I understand correctly, the purpose of the extra phrase is to
> make very clear that ASF doesn't have to follow the conditions of the
> Apache License, under any circumstances.
>
>
> Considering how widespread CLAs like iCLA are, in many projects
> (non-Apache), and their very broad and almost unconditional grant, I
> admit I find this point interesting. I wonder if the CLA-holding
> entity can be reasonably expected to follow a license modified to:
>
> > Unless You explicitly state otherwise when making the Contribution, 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.
>
> In case the (modified) license grant clashes with the CLA license
> grant, in some way, then the CLA-holding entity could be expected to
> follow the (modified) license?


Why would the CLA holding entity want that? It limits them. For example,
GPL 2.0 projects wouldn't have been able to move to GPL 3.0.

Hen