You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Pascal Schumacher <pa...@gmx.net> on 2015/06/17 09:14:21 UTC
Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re:
[Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Hello everybody,
from this discussion and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167
I deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in
the distribution. Is that correct?
Thanks and kind regards,
Pascal
Am 16.06.2015 um 22:05 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Note that if the docs are CC-SA, they could be handled externally
> and not bundled with the actual release. That is non-optimal, but
> may provide some breathing time to do a relicensing run.
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:15 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> resolved.html says "Unmodified media", which was intended to mean images (audio, video etc).
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-4
>>
>> I wouldn't expect any of those to have a file header (and would question whether resolved.html says Groovy docs can be CC-BY SA).
>>
>> On the more general question - I doubt there is a default file header. I don't see anything suggested here: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
>>
>> Presumably RAT has to be aware of the variants in general use and support them all as it discovers them.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:25 PM, P. Ottlinger <po...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>>
>> we've received a request to add a new license to Apache Creadur/RAT
>> (release audit tool). We are not sure which text needs to be included in
>> files to be properly CC-licensed?
>>
>> The page
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
>> says that CC-SA is a valid license for Apache projects.
>>
>> What is a valid file header we need to scan for to properly mark it as
>> CC-licensed during RAT runs?
>> Is it
>> '
>> THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
>> CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS
>> PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE
>> WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS
>> PROHIBITED.
>>
>> BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND
>> AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE LICENSOR GRANTS
>> YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF
>> SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
>> '
>> ?
>>
>> Thanks for any feedback before we start implementing this feature.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Phil
>>
>> PS: Links for details:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-206
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...I am not the expert like Bertrand...
This is flattering but unfortunately not true when it comes to legal stuff ;-)
You might notice a lot of "I think" and "probably" in my statements -
if people need actual legal advice I'm not the one to provide it. What
I know well is how the ASF works.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7470 ...
Looks good to me, as I said elsewhere once that's ready I suggest
asking for the Incubator PMC's approval with a [VOTE] on
general@incubator.a.o, that points to that ticket.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7470
On 18/06/2015 3:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> How does this process sound?
>>
>> * We create a Jira issue
>> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate
>> by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under
>> ASLv2
>> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed
>> to complete the process.
>
> IANAL (and I don't think anybody on this thread is) but this process looks
> reasonable to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 18.06.2015 07:11, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
>> release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
>> release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
>
> Correct. There's still a separate issue of where it gets published -- but I'm
> sure we can manage.
currently we don't use Apache web space for this kind of thing, so for
now there is no problem with the publishing
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
> release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
> release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
Correct. There's still a separate issue of where it gets published -- but I'm
sure we can manage.
> Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against
> all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide is
> correct.
>
> How does this process sound?
>
> * We create a Jira issue
> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate
> by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under
> ASLv2
> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed
> to complete the process.
IANAL (and I don't think anybody on this thread is) but this process looks
reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
I would prefer waiting for the relicensing.
2015-06-19 10:16 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Cédric Champeau
> <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc
> files. It
> > means more tweaking of our Gradle script...
>
> So I guess the question is whether you guys want to wait for the
> relicensing to be done before making the first Apache release. Once
> GROOVY-7470 is resolved I think we need an incubator PMC vote to
> ratify the decision, which lasts at least 72 hours.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Cédric Champeau
<ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc files. It
> means more tweaking of our Gradle script...
So I guess the question is whether you guys want to wait for the
relicensing to be done before making the first Apache release. Once
GROOVY-7470 is resolved I think we need an incubator PMC vote to
ratify the decision, which lasts at least 72 hours.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
Le 18 juin 2015 07:08, "Paul King" <pa...@asert.com.au> a écrit :
>
> On 18/06/2015 2:49 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs
and
>>> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue
should
>>> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation,
allowing
>>> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
>>> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our
best
>>> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
>>> missed.
>>
>>
>> It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in the
worst case, and have it instead on another page in another repository. In
other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase. So it is in my
eyes no critical part at all.
>>
>> bye blackdrag
>>
>
> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
>
It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc files. It
means more tweaking of our Gradle script.
> Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against
all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide
is correct.
>
> How does this process sound?
>
> * We create a Jira issue
> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to
indicate by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release
adoc under ASLv2
> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if
needed to complete the process.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
On 18/06/2015 2:49 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
> [...]
>> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
>> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
>> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
>> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
>> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
>> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
>> missed.
>
> It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase. So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
>
> bye blackdrag
>
I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide is correct.
How does this process sound?
* We create a Jira issue
* Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under ASLv2
* Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed to complete the process.
Cheers, Paul.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
> missed.
It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in
the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another
repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase.
So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
> missed.
It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in
the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another
repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase.
So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow
>issuing
>the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain
>available
>under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
>necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
>
>I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such
>contributors.
>Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
Is this truly the only possible solution? Would the ASF accept emails on
dev@groovy from these 20 people giving the one person or entity that did
sign the SGA permission to re-license their work? The Exhibit A for
additional SGAs for contributors that did not contribute entire files will
be difficult to describe. If the right to re-license was part of an
existing contributor agreement prior to donation, then this wouldn’t be an
issue.
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow
>issuing
>the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain
>available
>under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
>necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
>
>I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such
>contributors.
>Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
Is this truly the only possible solution? Would the ASF accept emails on
dev@groovy from these 20 people giving the one person or entity that did
sign the SGA permission to re-license their work? The Exhibit A for
additional SGAs for contributors that did not contribute entire files will
be difficult to describe. If the right to re-license was part of an
existing contributor agreement prior to donation, then this wouldn’t be an
issue.
-Alex
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the
> expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The
> initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had
> accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I
> needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed
> an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That
> was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before
> Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with
> the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to
> donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an
> acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not
> explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and
> get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but
> don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code.
> What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the
> CC files?
For a open source codebase which is already under ALv2 and has many copyright
holders, tracking down every last contributor and getting them to sign the SGA
is a costly exercise with questionable benefit. In the case of Groovy, the
SGA is only signed by a single contributor. It's my understanding that the
importation of Subversion followed this model, as it was mentioned as
precedent. Here is the head of the general@incubator discussion thread:
http://s.apache.org/4NM
The flawed assumption we were operating under, though, was that the
intellectual property being imported was entirely ALv2. In this case, the
code is all ALv2, but the docs are not.
The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow issuing
the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain available
under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such contributors.
Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
missed.
On a practical note for the folks reading this on legal-discuss@apache: When I
coordinated an 18-entity SGA back in 2010, best practices were not clear for
executing an SGA with multiple geographically dispersed copyright holders.
(Clearly you don't want to be shipping a single paper document all over the
globe.) Has the process been formalized since then?
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...I am not the expert like Bertrand...
This is flattering but unfortunately not true when it comes to legal stuff ;-)
You might notice a lot of "I think" and "probably" in my statements -
if people need actual legal advice I'm not the one to provide it. What
I know well is how the ASF works.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the
> expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The
> initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had
> accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I
> needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed
> an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That
> was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before
> Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with
> the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to
> donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an
> acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not
> explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and
> get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but
> don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code.
> What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the
> CC files?
For a open source codebase which is already under ALv2 and has many copyright
holders, tracking down every last contributor and getting them to sign the SGA
is a costly exercise with questionable benefit. In the case of Groovy, the
SGA is only signed by a single contributor. It's my understanding that the
importation of Subversion followed this model, as it was mentioned as
precedent. Here is the head of the general@incubator discussion thread:
http://s.apache.org/4NM
The flawed assumption we were operating under, though, was that the
intellectual property being imported was entirely ALv2. In this case, the
code is all ALv2, but the docs are not.
The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow issuing
the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain available
under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such contributors.
Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
missed.
On a practical note for the folks reading this on legal-discuss@apache: When I
coordinated an 18-entity SGA back in 2010, best practices were not clear for
executing an SGA with multiple geographically dispersed copyright holders.
(Clearly you don't want to be shipping a single paper document all over the
globe.) Has the process been formalized since then?
Marvin Humphrey
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 17/06/15 15:11, Alex Harui a écrit :
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code. What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the CC files?
The original Groovy code was under an AL 2.0 license (except teh doco,
which was under CC-BY_SA-3.0). Considering that, what could be the
problem with the current grant ?
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code. What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the CC files?
-Alex
From: Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM
To: "dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org<ma...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>" <de...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>>
Cc: legal-discuss <le...@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>>:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet<http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge<http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code. What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the CC files?
-Alex
From: Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM
To: "dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org<ma...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>" <de...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>>
Cc: legal-discuss <le...@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>>:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet<http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge<http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Steve Amerige <St...@sas.com>.
Hi all,
And, please be aware that enterprises look VERY carefully at licenses.
The Apache 2 license is fine and welcoming. Other licenses may put up
significant roadblocks to using Groovy if they are bundled with
distributions. Please keep the licensing clean is my request. If you
need to have something that is not Apache 2, please distribute it as an
entirely separate, optional download and do not bundle it with Groovy.
Thanks,
Steve Amerige
Principal Software Developer, Fraud and Compliance Solutions Development
SAS Institute, 100 SAS Campus Dr, Room U3050, Cary, NC 27513-8617
On 6/17/2015 6:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
>
> 2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge
> <glaforge@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their
> contributions to
> > the documentation under ASL?...
>
> Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
> been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
> contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
> I agree.
>
> > ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> > relicensing, is that okay?...
>
> I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
> document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
> open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
>
> > ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper
> with a real
> > signature, etc)...
>
> If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
> how it works so far ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Groovy Project Manager
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Nevertheless, contacting the authors and including them in the process is a
great opportunity for community building.
The contact doesn't even have to be framed as a request for permission. It
can be more of a friendly notification along thes sorts of lines
On Jun 17, 2015, Ted Dunning suggested:
> Hey... just wanted to let you know that the docs are being relicensed
> under ASL so that we can include them in the releases going forward. This
> was covered by the original grant you gave us so you don't have to take any
> action right now. Love your work and look forward to working with you and
> the rest of the community going forward
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
>
> IANAL, but this is exactly my understanding as well -- everything that has
> been covered by the grant *may* be relicensed.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Nevertheless, contacting the authors and including them in the process is a
great opportunity for community building.
The contact doesn't even have to be framed as a request for permission. It
can be more of a friendly notification along thes sorts of lines
On Jun 17, 2015, Ted Dunning suggested:
> Hey... just wanted to let you know that the docs are being relicensed
> under ASL so that we can include them in the releases going forward. This
> was covered by the original grant you gave us so you don't have to take any
> action right now. Love your work and look forward to working with you and
> the rest of the community going forward
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
>
> IANAL, but this is exactly my understanding as well -- everything that has
> been covered by the grant *may* be relicensed.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
IANAL, but this is exactly my understanding as well -- everything that has
been covered by the grant *may* be relicensed.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 17/06/15 12:09, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
>> So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
>
> Assuming the grant is ok, the next step would be to convert the files to
> AL 2.0 license....
I recommend an Incubator PMC vote before doing that, to make the
change an act of the foundation, and a jira issue to back the whole
thing to make sure everything's properly documented.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 17/06/15 12:09, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
Assuming the grant is ok, the next step would be to convert the files to
AL 2.0 license.
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
IANAL, but this is exactly my understanding as well -- everything that has
been covered by the grant *may* be relicensed.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their
> contributions to
> > the documentation under ASL?...
>
> Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
> been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
> contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
> I agree.
>
> > ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> > relicensing, is that okay?...
>
> I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
> document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
> open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
>
> > ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a
> real
> > signature, etc)...
>
> If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
> how it works so far ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their
> contributions to
> > the documentation under ASL?...
>
> Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
> been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
> contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
> I agree.
>
> > ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> > relicensing, is that okay?...
>
> I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
> document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
> open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
>
> > ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a
> real
> > signature, etc)...
>
> If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
> how it works so far ;-)
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
Another question:
What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
the documentation under ASL?
If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
relicensing, is that okay?
(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
signature, etc)
Guillaume
2015-06-17 10:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
> > confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
> > *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
> > source package distribution?..
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
>
> > But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
>
> Sure, that's not a problem - it's common for incubating projects to
> sort those things out during incubation.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
Another question:
What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
the documentation under ASL?
If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
relicensing, is that okay?
(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
signature, etc)
Guillaume
2015-06-17 10:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
> > confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
> > *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
> > source package distribution?..
>
> Yes, that's the idea.
>
> > But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
>
> Sure, that's not a problem - it's common for incubating projects to
> sort those things out during incubation.
>
> -Bertrand
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
> confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
> *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
> source package distribution?..
Yes, that's the idea.
> But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
Sure, that's not a problem - it's common for incubating projects to
sort those things out during incubation.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
> confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
> *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
> source package distribution?..
Yes, that's the idea.
> But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
Sure, that's not a problem - it's common for incubating projects to
sort those things out during incubation.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
2015-06-17 10:06 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
> > get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense...
>
> It's boring work indeed but probably better in the long term.
>
> > ...the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just
> about
> > the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which has
> > nothing to do with the documentation...
>
> Absolutely, so another option is to avoid including docs in the code
> release (I haven't checked if they are currently included) and keep
> the docs well separated while this is being sorted out.
>
When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
*.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
source package distribution?
But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
Guillaume
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
2015-06-17 10:06 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
> > get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense...
>
> It's boring work indeed but probably better in the long term.
>
> > ...the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just
> about
> > the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which has
> > nothing to do with the documentation...
>
> Absolutely, so another option is to avoid including docs in the code
> release (I haven't checked if they are currently included) and keep
> the docs well separated while this is being sorted out.
>
When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
*.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
source package distribution?
But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
Guillaume
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
> get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense...
It's boring work indeed but probably better in the long term.
> ...the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just about
> the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which has
> nothing to do with the documentation...
Absolutely, so another option is to avoid including docs in the code
release (I haven't checked if they are currently included) and keep
the docs well separated while this is being sorted out.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
> get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense...
It's boring work indeed but probably better in the long term.
> ...the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just about
> the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which has
> nothing to do with the documentation...
Absolutely, so another option is to avoid including docs in the code
release (I haven't checked if they are currently included) and keep
the docs well separated while this is being sorted out.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
2015-06-17 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Pascal Schumacher
> <pa...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > ...from this discussion and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I
> > deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in
> the
> > distribution. Is that correct?...
>
> That's my understanding, as "share alike" defines restrictions that
> the Apache License does not have.
>
> Is it possible to relicense the Groovy docs to Apache License? That
> looks like the simplest way to solve this.
>
Well, it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense.
But the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just
about the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which
has nothing to do with the documentation (it's not as if Groovy source code
was depending on documentation, like source code can depend on an GPL
library, for instance, so it's not infecting the code with those terms).
Am I wrong?
Guillaume
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
2015-06-17 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Pascal Schumacher
> <pa...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > ...from this discussion and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I
> > deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons
> > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in
> the
> > distribution. Is that correct?...
>
> That's my understanding, as "share alike" defines restrictions that
> the Apache License does not have.
>
> Is it possible to relicense the Groovy docs to Apache License? That
> looks like the simplest way to solve this.
>
Well, it's painful, time-consuming, boring, etc... but we might be able to
get the 20 or so folks who contributed the docs to agree to relicense.
But the CC-SA 3.0 is not a viral license like (L)GPL can be, it's just
about the documentation, it's not saying anything about the code base which
has nothing to do with the documentation (it's not as if Groovy source code
was depending on documentation, like source code can depend on an GPL
library, for instance, so it's not infecting the code with those terms).
Am I wrong?
Guillaume
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Pascal Schumacher
<pa...@gmx.net> wrote:
> ...from this discussion and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I
> deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
> distribution. Is that correct?...
That's my understanding, as "share alike" defines restrictions that
the Apache License does not have.
Is it possible to relicense the Groovy docs to Apache License? That
looks like the simplest way to solve this.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Pascal Schumacher
<pa...@gmx.net> wrote:
> ...from this discussion and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I
> deduct, that Groovy can not include its "Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
> distribution. Is that correct?...
That's my understanding, as "share alike" defines restrictions that
the Apache License does not have.
Is it possible to relicense the Groovy docs to Apache License? That
looks like the simplest way to solve this.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 17/06/15 12:19, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Le 17/06/15 09:14, Pascal Schumacher a écrit :
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> from this discussion and
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I deduct, that Groovy
>>> can not include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
>>> Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution. Is that
>>> correct?
>> Pascal,
>>
>> this is a discussion we are having right at the moment between mentors.
>> Thanks for bringing it here.
> In the interest of transparency, I initiated that brief offlist
> exchange less than a day ago, which has been immediately shunted onto
> the public lists at the insistence of one participant (and surely the
> concurrence of all). I am not a Groovy Mentor and wanted to nudge the
> matter forward while allowing those who have taken on that
> responsibility to take the lead.
Thanks Marvin.
I'm a bit sorry that this pb hits Groovy, but we should jump on it and
be sure that it won't occur again for other future podling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 17/06/15 09:14, Pascal Schumacher a écrit :
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> from this discussion and
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I deduct, that Groovy
>> can not include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
>> Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution. Is that
>> correct?
>
> Pascal,
>
> this is a discussion we are having right at the moment between mentors.
> Thanks for bringing it here.
In the interest of transparency, I initiated that brief offlist
exchange less than a day ago, which has been immediately shunted onto
the public lists at the insistence of one participant (and surely the
concurrence of all). I am not a Groovy Mentor and wanted to nudge the
matter forward while allowing those who have taken on that
responsibility to take the lead.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 17/06/15 09:14, Pascal Schumacher a écrit :
> Hello everybody,
>
> from this discussion and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-167 I deduct, that Groovy
> can not include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
> Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution. Is that
> correct?
Pascal,
this is a discussion we are having right at the moment between mentors.
Thanks for bringing it here.
The thing is that it's unclear, and thus the best way to get out of this
lack of clarity is to get rid of CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed file.
It seems like Cédric said at one point that he was considering changing
the license for the documentation (from CC-BY_SA-3.0 to AL 2.0) and that
would be the best move, IMO.
Note that this question has been raised early in the process of
incubating Groovy, and I made a mistake stating that keeping these files
with this license "seems correct".
Jim suggested that the doco could be packaged separately from Groovy but
that would probably mean a lot of work to separate the doco files from
teh trunk, AFAICT...
Thoughts ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org