You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Josh Thompson <jo...@ncsu.edu> on 2011/01/12 15:47:35 UTC
Re: code contribution licensing question
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday January 11, 2011, Noah Baker wrote:
> Hello, my question is for any licensing experts on the list.
>
> I would like to contribute code/fixes to the VCL project, but my employer
> prevents me from signing the ICLA. The only FOSS license I can release code
> under is the modified/new BSD license. I am wondering if there is any way
> for me to contribute code to VCL under this restriction.
>
> I have noticed that VCL's web front end code contains a distribution of
> Dojo, which is BSD (or AFL) licensed, and there are several other
> components with different licensing requirements in, or otherwise required
> by, the project.
>
> The code I would most like to contribute is highly self-contained (a
> full-featured KVM provisioning module with power_* functions, uses OS
> functions, etc). Could it be released separately under a BSD license and
> somehow included or merged into VCL?
>
> What about for other, less self-contained code, such as fixes?
>
> Thanks, and please forgive my licensing ignorance; I'm a dev, not a lawyer.
>
> Noah Baker
Can anyone from the legal list answer these questions?
Thanks,
Josh Thompson
Apache VCL
- --
- -------------------------------
Josh Thompson
VCL Developer
North Carolina State University
my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk0tvwsACgkQV/LQcNdtPQP5rACfXweoE+DiYE3Vrnesbmo+lRgp
VE4An2Hy2gs8YBIYHg+79gHxzIwXZqVt
=D95E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: code contribution licensing question
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
In practical terms, if it's big enough to be a library on github with
a category A license, VCL can just depend on it.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
>> code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
>> challenge to the ownership of the IP.
>> If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
>> sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
>> other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
>> assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
>> the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
>> there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
>> BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
>> committers whether to use any third-party code.
>
> I'd like to draw attention to Jennifer's use of the word 'dependency'
> here. I agree: if VCL wanted to have an external dependency on a
> BSD-licensed KVM provisioning module then this would be no problem if
> the dependency was documented properly.
>
> 'Including' or 'merging' is a different matter entirely. One of the
> reasons for the ICLA is that section 3 makes an explicit grant of all
> of the necessary patent licenses that the Contributor may have on the
> combination of this code with the project to which they are
> contributing. Section 4 clarifies this with respect to individuals
> who have employers.
>
> The net of this is that 'including' or 'merging' of such code is not
> something that we would routinely allow. That is not to say that it
> can't be done -- if you look around you will find tiny bits of public
> domain code in various projects. It is a matter of evaluating the
> risks and the benefits on a case by case basis, and (should the
> decision be to proceed) documenting all of this properly in the
> various files that accompany a release.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: code contribution licensing question
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
> code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
> challenge to the ownership of the IP.
> If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
> sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
> other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
> assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
> the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
> there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
> BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
> committers whether to use any third-party code.
I'd like to draw attention to Jennifer's use of the word 'dependency'
here. I agree: if VCL wanted to have an external dependency on a
BSD-licensed KVM provisioning module then this would be no problem if
the dependency was documented properly.
'Including' or 'merging' is a different matter entirely. One of the
reasons for the ICLA is that section 3 makes an explicit grant of all
of the necessary patent licenses that the Contributor may have on the
combination of this code with the project to which they are
contributing. Section 4 clarifies this with respect to individuals
who have employers.
The net of this is that 'including' or 'merging' of such code is not
something that we would routinely allow. That is not to say that it
can't be done -- if you look around you will find tiny bits of public
domain code in various projects. It is a matter of evaluating the
risks and the benefits on a case by case basis, and (should the
decision be to proceed) documenting all of this properly in the
various files that accompany a release.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: code contribution licensing question
Posted by Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com>.
The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
challenge to the ownership of the IP.
If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
committers whether to use any third-party code.
If a developer wants to contribute a patch or bug fix through Bugzilla or
the developers' mailing list, both of those forums require that the
developer first electronically agree that ASL v.2.0 will apply to the
submission.
Cheers,
Jennifer
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Josh Thompson <jo...@ncsu.edu>wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday January 11, 2011, Noah Baker wrote:
> > Hello, my question is for any licensing experts on the list.
> >
> > I would like to contribute code/fixes to the VCL project, but my employer
> > prevents me from signing the ICLA. The only FOSS license I can release
> code
> > under is the modified/new BSD license. I am wondering if there is any way
> > for me to contribute code to VCL under this restriction.
> >
> > I have noticed that VCL's web front end code contains a distribution of
> > Dojo, which is BSD (or AFL) licensed, and there are several other
> > components with different licensing requirements in, or otherwise
> required
> > by, the project.
> >
> > The code I would most like to contribute is highly self-contained (a
> > full-featured KVM provisioning module with power_* functions, uses OS
> > functions, etc). Could it be released separately under a BSD license and
> > somehow included or merged into VCL?
> >
> > What about for other, less self-contained code, such as fixes?
> >
> > Thanks, and please forgive my licensing ignorance; I'm a dev, not a
> lawyer.
> >
> > Noah Baker
>
> Can anyone from the legal list answer these questions?
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Thompson
> Apache VCL
> - --
> - -------------------------------
> Josh Thompson
> VCL Developer
> North Carolina State University
>
> my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0tvwsACgkQV/LQcNdtPQP5rACfXweoE+DiYE3Vrnesbmo+lRgp
> VE4An2Hy2gs8YBIYHg+79gHxzIwXZqVt
> =D95E
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: code contribution licensing question
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Kevan alluded to this, is your employer familiar with the ASL v2.0 ? Perhaps a quick review by the legal team would alleviate any concerns on your employers part. Also, Apache does not really recognize corporations as contributing code (apart from a corporate contribution which is generally more substantial than patches) so your work is considered as an individual. That said, you need to work out what you do on your time and if its acceptable with your employer.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Josh Thompson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday January 12, 2011, Josh Thompson wrote:
>> On Tuesday January 11, 2011, Noah Baker wrote:
>>> Hello, my question is for any licensing experts on the list.
>>>
>>> I would like to contribute code/fixes to the VCL project, but my employer
>>> prevents me from signing the ICLA. The only FOSS license I can release
>>> code under is the modified/new BSD license. I am wondering if there is
>>> any way for me to contribute code to VCL under this restriction.
>>>
>>> I have noticed that VCL's web front end code contains a distribution of
>>> Dojo, which is BSD (or AFL) licensed, and there are several other
>>> components with different licensing requirements in, or otherwise
>>> required by, the project.
>>>
>>> The code I would most like to contribute is highly self-contained (a
>>> full-featured KVM provisioning module with power_* functions, uses OS
>>> functions, etc). Could it be released separately under a BSD license and
>>> somehow included or merged into VCL?
>>>
>>> What about for other, less self-contained code, such as fixes?
>>>
>>> Thanks, and please forgive my licensing ignorance; I'm a dev, not a
>>> lawyer.
>>>
>>> Noah Baker
>>
>> Can anyone from the legal list answer these questions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh Thompson
>> Apache VCL
>
> Kevan's response reminded me I needed to forward the answers from the legal
> list. Here they are:
>
> - ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
> Subject: Re: code contribution licensing question
> Date: Thursday January 13, 2011, 1:22:08 am
> From: "Jennifer O'Neill" <je...@gmail.com>
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>
> The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
> code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
> challenge to the ownership of the IP.
> If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
> sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
> other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
> assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
> the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
> there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
> BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
> committers whether to use any third-party code.
>
> If a developer wants to contribute a patch or bug fix through Bugzilla or
> the developers' mailing list, both of those forums require that the
> developer first electronically agree that ASL v.2.0 will apply to the
> submission.
>
> Cheers,
> Jennifer
> - -----------------------------------------
>
> - ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
> Subject: Re: code contribution licensing question
> Date: Thursday January 13, 2011, 11:14:06 am
> From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
>> code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
>> challenge to the ownership of the IP.
>> If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
>> sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
>> other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
>> assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
>> the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
>> there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
>> BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
>> committers whether to use any third-party code.
>
> I'd like to draw attention to Jennifer's use of the word 'dependency'
> here. I agree: if VCL wanted to have an external dependency on a
> BSD-licensed KVM provisioning module then this would be no problem if
> the dependency was documented properly.
>
> 'Including' or 'merging' is a different matter entirely. One of the
> reasons for the ICLA is that section 3 makes an explicit grant of all
> of the necessary patent licenses that the Contributor may have on the
> combination of this code with the project to which they are
> contributing. Section 4 clarifies this with respect to individuals
> who have employers.
>
> The net of this is that 'including' or 'merging' of such code is not
> something that we would routinely allow. That is not to say that it
> can't be done -- if you look around you will find tiny bits of public
> domain code in various projects. It is a matter of evaluating the
> risks and the benefits on a case by case basis, and (should the
> decision be to proceed) documenting all of this properly in the
> various files that accompany a release.
>
> - - Sam Ruby
>
> - -----------------------------------------
> - --
> - -------------------------------
> Josh Thompson
> VCL Developer
> North Carolina State University
>
> my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk01+KIACgkQV/LQcNdtPQP0UgCfSYZeTZw08DPoiY7N9KXhbPkQ
> HekAnjrrQ0axRXOuMILx8HdLyQ2YGhwj
> =h5EF
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: code contribution licensing question
Posted by Josh Thompson <jo...@ncsu.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday January 12, 2011, Josh Thompson wrote:
> On Tuesday January 11, 2011, Noah Baker wrote:
> > Hello, my question is for any licensing experts on the list.
> >
> > I would like to contribute code/fixes to the VCL project, but my employer
> > prevents me from signing the ICLA. The only FOSS license I can release
> > code under is the modified/new BSD license. I am wondering if there is
> > any way for me to contribute code to VCL under this restriction.
> >
> > I have noticed that VCL's web front end code contains a distribution of
> > Dojo, which is BSD (or AFL) licensed, and there are several other
> > components with different licensing requirements in, or otherwise
> > required by, the project.
> >
> > The code I would most like to contribute is highly self-contained (a
> > full-featured KVM provisioning module with power_* functions, uses OS
> > functions, etc). Could it be released separately under a BSD license and
> > somehow included or merged into VCL?
> >
> > What about for other, less self-contained code, such as fixes?
> >
> > Thanks, and please forgive my licensing ignorance; I'm a dev, not a
> > lawyer.
> >
> > Noah Baker
>
> Can anyone from the legal list answer these questions?
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Thompson
> Apache VCL
Kevan's response reminded me I needed to forward the answers from the legal
list. Here they are:
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: code contribution licensing question
Date: Thursday January 13, 2011, 1:22:08 am
From: "Jennifer O'Neill" <je...@gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
challenge to the ownership of the IP.
If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
committers whether to use any third-party code.
If a developer wants to contribute a patch or bug fix through Bugzilla or
the developers' mailing list, both of those forums require that the
developer first electronically agree that ASL v.2.0 will apply to the
submission.
Cheers,
Jennifer
- -----------------------------------------
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: code contribution licensing question
Date: Thursday January 13, 2011, 11:14:06 am
From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Jennifer O'Neill <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The purpose of having all committers sign the ICLA is so that all "Apache"
> code is licensed uniformly and ASF is better protected if there's a
> challenge to the ownership of the IP.
> If a developer wishes to contribute some material amount of code but can't
> sign the ICLA, then his/her code contribution is evaluated just like any
> other third-party code licensed under terms other than the ASL v.2.0. I
> assume that by the modified BSD, you mean the newer version that excludes
> the advertising clause. This license is compatible with the ASL v.2.0 and
> there are certainly a number of Apache projects with dependencies on
> BSD-licensed code. Ultimately, though, it is up to the VCL project
> committers whether to use any third-party code.
I'd like to draw attention to Jennifer's use of the word 'dependency'
here. I agree: if VCL wanted to have an external dependency on a
BSD-licensed KVM provisioning module then this would be no problem if
the dependency was documented properly.
'Including' or 'merging' is a different matter entirely. One of the
reasons for the ICLA is that section 3 makes an explicit grant of all
of the necessary patent licenses that the Contributor may have on the
combination of this code with the project to which they are
contributing. Section 4 clarifies this with respect to individuals
who have employers.
The net of this is that 'including' or 'merging' of such code is not
something that we would routinely allow. That is not to say that it
can't be done -- if you look around you will find tiny bits of public
domain code in various projects. It is a matter of evaluating the
risks and the benefits on a case by case basis, and (should the
decision be to proceed) documenting all of this properly in the
various files that accompany a release.
- - Sam Ruby
- -----------------------------------------
- --
- -------------------------------
Josh Thompson
VCL Developer
North Carolina State University
my GPG/PGP key can be found at pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk01+KIACgkQV/LQcNdtPQP0UgCfSYZeTZw08DPoiY7N9KXhbPkQ
HekAnjrrQ0axRXOuMILx8HdLyQ2YGhwj
=h5EF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----