You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> on 2008/03/27 11:27:23 UTC
Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Hi,
I work on the Apache MyFaces (JSF implementation), but it happens that
I also need to *patch* (due to day-job)
the RI (from Sun), that is (L)GPL / CDDL licensed.
Now they want me to sign this paper:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/sca.pdf
Now my big question is... will this have any effects on my contributions to
Apache MyFaces' JSF implementation ?
Thanks!
Matthias
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
RE: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Jim Barnett <ji...@bea.com>.
Matthias:
I despise that piece of paper (the Sun SCA) and have counseled my client
(BEA) against signing it for the following reason:
By making Sun co-owner of the rights in the works you contribute, you
enable Sun to do whatever it wants with your contribution and also have
no assurance that the project to which you are contributing will remain
governed by a license you can live with. The SCA document does not in
any way obligate Sun to put your contribution into any open source
project. Sun retains control of what goes in. Sun's co-ownership of
your work, however, allows Sun use your work commercially in non-open
source projects should it choose to do so.
Likewise, because Sun is co-owner of the rights in all code in any
project covered by an SCA, the license you enjoy today may not be
available to you tomorrow. As owner, Sun could for example elect to
discontinue the CDDL for Glassfish and instead go with pure,
non-classpath-excepted GPL. Were your contributions made on behalf of a
commercial software company that was banking on its ability to leverage
the Glassfish code in its products, the SCA makes that a risky gamble.
Sun has been unwilling to make changes to the SCA, even though a couple
of simple changes could minimize the risks cited above. Two that come
to mind would be (a) agree to use the contribution only in the project
it is earmarked for by the contributor, or not at all, and (b) agree
that no matter what future changes to project licensing Sun elects to
make, the contributor may continue to use all project code under the
licenses available at the time of contribution (i.e., CDDL if that's
what floats your boat).
Putting my grumblings aside, signing the SCA should not have any unique
effect on your work on other projects including those under the Apache
banner. After all, you still co-own the rights in your contributions
made under the SCA so you are free to do other things with those works
(just as Sun too is free to do as it will with those works). I would
run the above gripes by your day-job employer to see if the risks
outlined affect their willingness to participate in a Sun project under
an SCA.
Regards,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: mwessendorf@gmail.com [mailto:mwessendorf@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Matthias Wessendorf
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:07 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Fwd: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
forwarding this to legal discuss
Thanks for the advice, Geir.
-M
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
To: jcp-open@apache.org
I don't believe so.
As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
anything you do at the ASF.
You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure, but I
don't expect any problems.
geir
On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I work on the Apache MyFaces (JSF implementation), but it happens
that
> I also need to *patch* (due to day-job)
> the RI (from Sun), that is (L)GPL / CDDL licensed.
>
> Now they want me to sign this paper:
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/sca.pdf
>
> Now my big question is... will this have any effects on my
> contributions to
> Apache MyFaces' JSF implementation ?
>
> Thanks!
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Fwd: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
forwarding this to legal discuss
Thanks for the advice, Geir.
-M
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
To: jcp-open@apache.org
I don't believe so.
As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
anything you do at the ASF.
You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure, but I
don't expect any problems.
geir
On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I work on the Apache MyFaces (JSF implementation), but it happens that
> I also need to *patch* (due to day-job)
> the RI (from Sun), that is (L)GPL / CDDL licensed.
>
> Now they want me to sign this paper:
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/sca.pdf
>
> Now my big question is... will this have any effects on my
> contributions to
> Apache MyFaces' JSF implementation ?
>
> Thanks!
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
hi
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't believe so.
>
> As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
> here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
> anything you do at the ASF.
yeah.. well... if I fix it there, others will have the benefit as well
and not only we ... ;-)
>
> You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure, but I
> don't expect any problems.
done!
Thanks!
>
> geir
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I work on the Apache MyFaces (JSF implementation), but it happens that
> > I also need to *patch* (due to day-job)
> > the RI (from Sun), that is (L)GPL / CDDL licensed.
> >
> > Now they want me to sign this paper:
> > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/sca.pdf
> >
> > Now my big question is... will this have any effects on my
> > contributions to
> > Apache MyFaces' JSF implementation ?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Matthias
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Onno Kluyt <On...@Sun.COM>.
Many of these questions are answered here:
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreement.jsp
Onno.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>>>
>>> No one can take an Apache project and do that. Granted, the
>>> obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far
>>> lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but
>>> still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend
>>> that if
>>> you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the
>>> entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is
>>> necessary to keep all actors equal.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but I still retain copyright on my own code in either
>> situation, and with that code I can
>> do the same, plus they can't change the terms of the license of the
>> code I'm contributing. Maybe
>> some future work, but not the snapshot.
>
> Oh, as a copyright owner, they certainly can :)
>
> How do you think they plan on supplying Java source licensees with
> future updates when they have only one codebase, the OpenJDK codebase?
>
> geir
>
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> >>
> >> No one can take an Apache project and do that. Granted, the
> >> obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far
> >> lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but
> >> still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend that
> >> if
> >> you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the
> >> entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is
> >> necessary to keep all actors equal.
> >>
> >
> > Sure, but I still retain copyright on my own code in either
> > situation, and with that code I can
> > do the same, plus they can't change the terms of the license of the
> > code I'm contributing. Maybe
> > some future work, but not the snapshot.
>
> Oh, as a copyright owner, they certainly can :)
>
> How do you think they plan on supplying Java source licensees with
> future updates when they have only one codebase, the OpenJDK codebase?
>
The only aspect I'm referring is that I can not be locked out. A given license in use within a
snapshot of time will apply to that source, and if I have it, it can't just be changed...my terms
that is. Yes, they may have different licensing deals etc, but I'm just referring to the one I
might enter into as a contributor at a specific moment in time. This is of course only
referencing the collective. I can do what ever I like with my own source code, and in my own
terms. Anyways, good conversation :-D
Wade
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>>
>> No one can take an Apache project and do that. Granted, the
>> obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far
>> lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but
>> still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend that
>> if
>> you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the
>> entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is
>> necessary to keep all actors equal.
>>
>
> Sure, but I still retain copyright on my own code in either
> situation, and with that code I can
> do the same, plus they can't change the terms of the license of the
> code I'm contributing. Maybe
> some future work, but not the snapshot.
Oh, as a copyright owner, they certainly can :)
How do you think they plan on supplying Java source licensees with
future updates when they have only one codebase, the OpenJDK codebase?
geir
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> > Anyways, others have actually taken Sun projects and sold them
> > commercially. There are groups
> > selling OpenOffice as a differently named packaged software product
> > along with other softwares
> > and their value adds. Others do this with NetBeans as well. With
> > NetBeans one can take the full
> > IDE if they want to, call it something else, add a couple other
> > modules to it, and sell their own
> > branded IDE for money with added terms and an overall different
> > license with the core obviously
> > being covered by the GPL w/ClassPath Extensions and CDDL.
>
> Really? try shipping a derivative work under a closed source license.
>
Do it all the time. Now, of course, one has to include the ability for one to find the sources of
the base projects etc, but modules built atop, this is not the case.
> >
> >
> > You may be referring to something else though, but the Sun projects
> > code released under one
> > license can't be changed on the given release, so I don't really see
> > a real difference in others
> > selling and licensing a product commercially or not. It seems much
> > like what Linux distros do.
> > Someone has to pay the devs and they all have to eat :-D.
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits
> >>> something, but with the way legal
> >>> systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it
> >>> can certainly feel necessary
> >>> to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an
> >>> understanding. Anyways, the
> >>> SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your
> >>> code in someone else's
> >>> project.
> >>
> >> No, that's not true. At the ASF, we don't get "joint copyright"
> >> assignment when code is placed in our projects. The copyright
> >> remains
> >> distributed among those that contributed it, and the project
> >> asserts a
> >> collective copyright on the entire work.
> >>
> >
> > This is what the joint copyright is.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > Those who contribute their own code have a copyright on
> > their contributions, and the project has their copyright on the
> > collective work. Seems the SCA
> > asserts the same thing...just someone has to sign it.
>
> Nope. They are not the same thing. The collective copyright is the
> copyright on the *set* of elements, but the authors still hold the
> copyright on the elements themselves. Think about it as an anthology
> of poetry or something. The editor can assert copyright on the book,
> but each poet still maintains individual copyrights on the poems
> themselves.
>
> Sun can take the OpenJDK codebase and remove any obligations imposed
> by the GPL and give you a license to use that code in any way you
> chose (or in reality, as they allow you...)
>
> No one can take an Apache project and do that. Granted, the
> obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far
> lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but
> still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend that if
> you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the
> entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is
> necessary to keep all actors equal.
>
Sure, but I still retain copyright on my own code in either situation, and with that code I can
do the same, plus they can't change the terms of the license of the code I'm contributing. Maybe
some future work, but not the snapshot.
Seems more semantics really, and doesn't outright affect the person who contributes their
individual pieces. In either situation someone else, including competitors, may use the code you
contribute mostly how they like and in any way, including ways a contributor may not like, but I
concede a better way may be or is likely doable and could set the playing field more level. But,
like I mentioned about Oracle (and all the others), they're using competitors developers time in
their products and making a good buck on it.
Seems roughly equal now, and all contributing to either style project reap the benefits of the
collective. I guess that is my premise, and I'm not saying either way is free of glitches; I just
don't see it as working for Sun for free any more than any other company or individual project
owner when it all boils down :-D
Wade
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>>
>>> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't believe so.
>>>>
>>>> As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
>>>> here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no
>>>> effect on
>>>> anything you do at the ASF.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure,
>>>> but I
>>>> don't expect any problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see the "everyone works for us for free" part. All the SCA
>>> does is assign joint copyright
>>> through agreement and signature versus relying only on a license for
>>> contribution and covers
>>> their butt legally to use the sources someone else volunteers to add
>>> to one of their projects
>>> without being bogged down by future claims.
>>
>> They also take that source and re-license under commercial terms to
>> others, because they can (and no one else can). It's a brilliant
>> strategy :) Got the MySQL crew a cool $1B.
>>
>
> Yes, but MySQL had commercial licensing the whole time ;-). It was
> very expensive to include a
> copy of MySQL with a commercial product. I wrote them a long time
> ago and asked for a project we
> were working on. The reply was they wanted us to pay roughly $400.00-
> U.S. over a few years ago
> for each copy we distributed in a piece of commercial software which
> didn't cost 50 itself, so we
> went with Sybase SQL Anywhere.
Sun has commercial licensing for the Java codebase. Have had it the
whole time.
>
>
> Anyways, others have actually taken Sun projects and sold them
> commercially. There are groups
> selling OpenOffice as a differently named packaged software product
> along with other softwares
> and their value adds. Others do this with NetBeans as well. With
> NetBeans one can take the full
> IDE if they want to, call it something else, add a couple other
> modules to it, and sell their own
> branded IDE for money with added terms and an overall different
> license with the core obviously
> being covered by the GPL w/ClassPath Extensions and CDDL.
Really? try shipping a derivative work under a closed source license.
>
>
> You may be referring to something else though, but the Sun projects
> code released under one
> license can't be changed on the given release, so I don't really see
> a real difference in others
> selling and licensing a product commercially or not. It seems much
> like what Linux distros do.
> Someone has to pay the devs and they all have to eat :-D.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits
>>> something, but with the way legal
>>> systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it
>>> can certainly feel necessary
>>> to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an
>>> understanding. Anyways, the
>>> SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your
>>> code in someone else's
>>> project.
>>
>> No, that's not true. At the ASF, we don't get "joint copyright"
>> assignment when code is placed in our projects. The copyright
>> remains
>> distributed among those that contributed it, and the project
>> asserts a
>> collective copyright on the entire work.
>>
>
> This is what the joint copyright is.
No it isn't.
> Those who contribute their own code have a copyright on
> their contributions, and the project has their copyright on the
> collective work. Seems the SCA
> asserts the same thing...just someone has to sign it.
Nope. They are not the same thing. The collective copyright is the
copyright on the *set* of elements, but the authors still hold the
copyright on the elements themselves. Think about it as an anthology
of poetry or something. The editor can assert copyright on the book,
but each poet still maintains individual copyrights on the poems
themselves.
Sun can take the OpenJDK codebase and remove any obligations imposed
by the GPL and give you a license to use that code in any way you
chose (or in reality, as they allow you...)
No one can take an Apache project and do that. Granted, the
obligations placed upon the licensee by the Apache License are far
lighter than that of the GPL so that it really doesn't matter, but
still - there is a clear difference, and that is why I contend that if
you want a level playing field, some sort of agreement between the
entity that is being granted joint copyright and the community is
necessary to keep all actors equal.
>
>
>> I agree that having a single copyright holder is probably useful for
>> dealing w/ license transgressions (to give a single entity standing
>> to
>> do something about it) - I think that some kind of "no special
>> benefit" covenant between the copyright holder and the community
>> would
>> be better to have a level playing field.
>>
>
> Sure. Hard to say though. At that level someone could contribute a
> couple lines of code then be
> able to do what they want with the rest. However, with open-source
> projects which are more
> liberal than the GPL one can do many things with the project and
> commercially turn a profit. IBM,
> Oracle, Sun, etc all do this with the Apache projects, and, at least
> for IBM and Sun...I don't
> know about Oracle, they contribute to different ones.
They all use our stuff. And that's ok.
>
>
> For instance, we use Oracle AS (Web Server), and it is Oracle OC4J
> and Apache HTTPD with some add
> ins. They then have a bunch of other open-source libraries in use.
> Reading the licensing for the
> product one can't tell anything about the underlying contributions
> unless they dig down and see
> the licenses in the individual pieces directories etc, and you
> certainly pay for the
> product...$$$, but others can do the same thing with the base open-
> source.
Yep. :)
geir
>
>
> Wade
>
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
>
> > --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> I don't believe so.
> >>
> >> As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
> >> here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
> >> anything you do at the ASF.
> >>
> >> You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure,
> >> but I
> >> don't expect any problems.
> >>
> >
> > I don't see the "everyone works for us for free" part. All the SCA
> > does is assign joint copyright
> > through agreement and signature versus relying only on a license for
> > contribution and covers
> > their butt legally to use the sources someone else volunteers to add
> > to one of their projects
> > without being bogged down by future claims.
>
> They also take that source and re-license under commercial terms to
> others, because they can (and no one else can). It's a brilliant
> strategy :) Got the MySQL crew a cool $1B.
>
Yes, but MySQL had commercial licensing the whole time ;-). It was very expensive to include a
copy of MySQL with a commercial product. I wrote them a long time ago and asked for a project we
were working on. The reply was they wanted us to pay roughly $400.00-U.S. over a few years ago
for each copy we distributed in a piece of commercial software which didn't cost 50 itself, so we
went with Sybase SQL Anywhere.
Anyways, others have actually taken Sun projects and sold them commercially. There are groups
selling OpenOffice as a differently named packaged software product along with other softwares
and their value adds. Others do this with NetBeans as well. With NetBeans one can take the full
IDE if they want to, call it something else, add a couple other modules to it, and sell their own
branded IDE for money with added terms and an overall different license with the core obviously
being covered by the GPL w/ClassPath Extensions and CDDL.
You may be referring to something else though, but the Sun projects code released under one
license can't be changed on the given release, so I don't really see a real difference in others
selling and licensing a product commercially or not. It seems much like what Linux distros do.
Someone has to pay the devs and they all have to eat :-D.
> >
> >
> > The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits
> > something, but with the way legal
> > systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it
> > can certainly feel necessary
> > to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an
> > understanding. Anyways, the
> > SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your
> > code in someone else's
> > project.
>
> No, that's not true. At the ASF, we don't get "joint copyright"
> assignment when code is placed in our projects. The copyright remains
> distributed among those that contributed it, and the project asserts a
> collective copyright on the entire work.
>
This is what the joint copyright is. Those who contribute their own code have a copyright on
their contributions, and the project has their copyright on the collective work. Seems the SCA
asserts the same thing...just someone has to sign it.
> I agree that having a single copyright holder is probably useful for
> dealing w/ license transgressions (to give a single entity standing to
> do something about it) - I think that some kind of "no special
> benefit" covenant between the copyright holder and the community would
> be better to have a level playing field.
>
Sure. Hard to say though. At that level someone could contribute a couple lines of code then be
able to do what they want with the rest. However, with open-source projects which are more
liberal than the GPL one can do many things with the project and commercially turn a profit. IBM,
Oracle, Sun, etc all do this with the Apache projects, and, at least for IBM and Sun...I don't
know about Oracle, they contribute to different ones.
For instance, we use Oracle AS (Web Server), and it is Oracle OC4J and Apache HTTPD with some add
ins. They then have a bunch of other open-source libraries in use. Reading the licensing for the
product one can't tell anything about the underlying contributions unless they dig down and see
the licenses in the individual pieces directories etc, and you certainly pay for the
product...$$$, but others can do the same thing with the base open-source.
Wade
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe so.
>>
>> As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
>> here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
>> anything you do at the ASF.
>>
>> You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure,
>> but I
>> don't expect any problems.
>>
>
> I don't see the "everyone works for us for free" part. All the SCA
> does is assign joint copyright
> through agreement and signature versus relying only on a license for
> contribution and covers
> their butt legally to use the sources someone else volunteers to add
> to one of their projects
> without being bogged down by future claims.
They also take that source and re-license under commercial terms to
others, because they can (and no one else can). It's a brilliant
strategy :) Got the MySQL crew a cool $1B.
>
>
> The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits
> something, but with the way legal
> systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it
> can certainly feel necessary
> to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an
> understanding. Anyways, the
> SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your
> code in someone else's
> project.
No, that's not true. At the ASF, we don't get "joint copyright"
assignment when code is placed in our projects. The copyright remains
distributed among those that contributed it, and the project asserts a
collective copyright on the entire work.
I agree that having a single copyright holder is probably useful for
dealing w/ license transgressions (to give a single entity standing to
do something about it) - I think that some kind of "no special
benefit" covenant between the copyright holder and the community would
be better to have a level playing field.
geir
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by Wade Chandler <hw...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I don't believe so.
>
> As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
> here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
> anything you do at the ASF.
>
> You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure, but I
> don't expect any problems.
>
I don't see the "everyone works for us for free" part. All the SCA does is assign joint copyright
through agreement and signature versus relying only on a license for contribution and covers
their butt legally to use the sources someone else volunteers to add to one of their projects
without being bogged down by future claims.
The sad reality is this should be the case when one commits something, but with the way legal
systems work sometimes not based on laws but opinions or feelings it can certainly feel necessary
to corporations to go the extra mile to make sure everyone is at an understanding. Anyways, the
SCA is simply a signed statement of what it really means to put your code in someone else's
project.
Wade
Re: Contributing to RI (SUN) and Apache...
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
I don't believe so.
As much as I hate/admire (Good Geir / Evil Geir) what Sun is doing
here ("everyone works for us for free!"), it should have no effect on
anything you do at the ASF.
You might want to run this past legal-discuss to be doubly sure, but I
don't expect any problems.
geir
On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I work on the Apache MyFaces (JSF implementation), but it happens that
> I also need to *patch* (due to day-job)
> the RI (from Sun), that is (L)GPL / CDDL licensed.
>
> Now they want me to sign this paper:
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/sca.pdf
>
> Now my big question is... will this have any effects on my
> contributions to
> Apache MyFaces' JSF implementation ?
>
> Thanks!
> Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org