You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2015/11/30 17:56:22 UTC
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Moving to legal-discuss (from general@incubator).
This thread starts here [1] as a fork from [2]. One comment to a recent
response from Ted is below, but the basic re-cap:
I want to verify whether:
1) a code base that is under AL2.0 can be donated to the ASF without an
SGA.
2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
On 11/30/15, 6:54 AM, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> >b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
>>
>> In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
>> community and continue to contribute. It has to be recorded by the
>> secretary and reads like legal-ese I am trying for a hopefully quicker
>> and easier informal adoption. I really don't expect the past
>>contributors
>> to join this new family (i.e. work on this code at the ASF). The ones
>>who
>> want to truly join will have to sign an ICLA and be voted in as a
>> committer.
>
>
>Yes, it does read like legalese, but no it doesn't bind anybody to be part
>of the ASF or to continue to contribute.
I agree it doesn't bind you in that way, but IMO, the ICLA assumes there
will be future work which is one of the reasons it is long and legal.
This makes sense in most cases because code donations usually come in with
committers, but the essence of this thread is whether there is a less
formal shortcut if someone has code under AL and they want us to take over
it and don't have plans themselves to continue to work on it. If they
want to keep working on it, we'll ask for an ICLA.
Thanks,
-Alex
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3cD
27B3376.5CC2A%25aharui@adobe.com%3e
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3cC
AHfHakFcf+KRH6-ZTykaSCnPo8Xo2AKZ7Vhc4oaTWKNvDJc1JQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/1/15, 10:34 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>If the community is dead, there's no one around to give it
>to us :)
I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. The community is dead, but
most/all of the code owners are probably not and my takeaway from various
threads is that the code owners are the ones who really have
decision-making power especially when the community is effectively dead.
And since a major code owner from each code base has indicated a desire to
donate, I would like to characterize the transaction that way so they
continue to appear to be offering something to us, instead of us taking
something from them.
Is that ok? Do you care that much about the words in this draft? Do you
want it to be more conversational as you proposed it instead of line-item
as I proposed it?
Thanks,
-Alex
>
>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/1/15, 1:08 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The word "fork" just seems less friendly and implies to me that
>>>
>>> In the age of Git, a fork should be considered free of any negative
>>> implications.
>>>
>>
>> Well, concerns have been expressed that we are forking the community,
>>even
>> though the community around these code bases is effectively dead. That
>> way it reads more like they are giving something to us instead of us
>> taking something.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
If the community is dead, there's no one around to give it
to us :)
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/1/15, 1:08 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The word "fork" just seems less friendly and implies to me that
>>
>> In the age of Git, a fork should be considered free of any negative
>> implications.
>>
>
> Well, concerns have been expressed that we are forking the community, even
> though the community around these code bases is effectively dead. That
> way it reads more like they are giving something to us instead of us
> taking something.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 12/1/15, 1:08 AM, "Jochen Wiedmann" <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> The word "fork" just seems less friendly and implies to me that
>
>In the age of Git, a fork should be considered free of any negative
>implications.
>
Well, concerns have been expressed that we are forking the community, even
though the community around these code bases is effectively dead. That
way it reads more like they are giving something to us instead of us
taking something.
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> The word "fork" just seems less friendly and implies to me that
In the age of Git, a fork should be considered free of any negative
implications.
> there will be more than one valid version which I don't think is the
Which only means, that you should distinguish between "Foo" and
"Apache Foo" very quickly.
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/30/15, 12:14 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>I would suggest characterizing this as a 'fork' rather
>than a donation... Ala:
>
> We notice that Project Foo is basically dead. Project
> Foo is licensed under the Apache License v2. The ASF
> would like to create a fork of Foo and reboot the
> project as suggested by a previous major contributor.
> We are sending this email out to all known contributors
> to inform you and to ensure there are no conflicts or
> concerns.... blah blah... we understand that all your
> contributions were under the ALv2... blah blah...
>
>Since it appears that, unlike Groovy, there is not a person
>authorize to sign "for" the entire project, it is best
>to consider this a fork, not a donation and to structure
>the conversation around that.
In both of these cases, while there is no single person or entity that
owns the code base, there is a small core of folks who did almost all of
the work. The word "fork" just seems less friendly and implies to me that
there will be more than one valid version which I don't think is the
intent of the past contributors I've discussed with. I'm hoping the
result is that the center of development moves to the ASF and doesn't
split.
Please can we try to characterize this as a "donation"?
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I would suggest characterizing this as a 'fork' rather
than a donation... Ala:
We notice that Project Foo is basically dead. Project
Foo is licensed under the Apache License v2. The ASF
would like to create a fork of Foo and reboot the
project as suggested by a previous major contributor.
We are sending this email out to all known contributors
to inform you and to ensure there are no conflicts or
concerns.... blah blah... we understand that all your
contributions were under the ALv2... blah blah...
Since it appears that, unlike Groovy, there is not a person
authorize to sign "for" the entire project, it is best
to consider this a fork, not a donation and to structure
the conversation around that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 30 November 2015 at 17:49, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/30/15, 9:29 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it
>>>in
>>> the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
>>> email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
>>
>>Do you mean for the existing code or for future patches? The
>>question is not quite clear.
>
> Existing code.
>
>>My suggested course of action is to send an email to the
>>current project's development and user lists (maybe create
>>some Issue or Bugz entry, etc...) with the notice that a PMC
>>at the ASF wishes to fork the project and maintain and develop
>>it and to ask for comments. If there is dissent in that community
>>about this course of action, I would encourage you asking both
>>Legal and the PMC "what to do now".
>
> I forgot to mention in my re-cap that there really isn't a community
> associated with these code bases anymore. So to me, asking folks who've
> made contributions in the past is the same as asking the community. I
> will ask what to do if there is dissent, but my main question here is, if
> I send an email to 12 past contributors and only 4 respond after a week of
> waiting (which covers 90% of the code), can we take 100% of the code as
> long as we feel that if we do get any objections later we can kick out
> those changes with out ruining that code base?
It seems to me that waiting just a week is insufficient here.
Some people go on holidays and don't have e-mail access.
[Indeed the longer the holiday perhaps the less likely they will have
e-mail access.]
I think it would be polite to wait quite a bit longer - e.g. 4+ weeks
- before assuming that you won't get a response.
>>
>>Please note that although the ALv2 gives us access to the code,
>>it does not provide us the ability to use their mark, unless the
>>current project maintainers explicitly assign us their mark.
>
> I will ask the founding contributors about the marks.
>
> Over on general@ I was drafting the email I would send to the past
> contributors. Perhaps we can finish drafting it here. The current draft
> reads:
>
> ---- Draft 2 -----
>
> [Friendly intro]
>
> A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
> Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
> development of the XXX code. Normally, this is called a "donation" and
> requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
> licensed under Apache License 2.0, your contributions may be donated to
> the ASF by replying to this email to affirm that:
>
> 1) You agree that the code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
> 2) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
> copyright of the code you wrote. You are only granting a license to not
> only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
> 3) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
> enough contributors to this code base, the "donation" may be abandoned.
> 4) You understand that if this "donation" is completed, future downloads
> should come from, and changes applied to, the code base in an
> ASF-controlled code management and distribution system, and discussion
> about the code base should happen on Apache Flex mailing lists.
> 5) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
> wish to have continued involvement in changes to this code base, we can
> discuss separately the steps to become a Committer. We would love to have
> you come be part of Apache Flex if you are interested in making further
> contributions.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Harui, for the
> Apache Flex PMC.
> ----- End Draft 2 -----
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 11/30/15, 9:29 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
>> 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it
>>in
>> the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
>> email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
>
>Do you mean for the existing code or for future patches? The
>question is not quite clear.
Existing code.
>My suggested course of action is to send an email to the
>current project's development and user lists (maybe create
>some Issue or Bugz entry, etc...) with the notice that a PMC
>at the ASF wishes to fork the project and maintain and develop
>it and to ask for comments. If there is dissent in that community
>about this course of action, I would encourage you asking both
>Legal and the PMC "what to do now".
I forgot to mention in my re-cap that there really isn't a community
associated with these code bases anymore. So to me, asking folks who've
made contributions in the past is the same as asking the community. I
will ask what to do if there is dissent, but my main question here is, if
I send an email to 12 past contributors and only 4 respond after a week of
waiting (which covers 90% of the code), can we take 100% of the code as
long as we feel that if we do get any objections later we can kick out
those changes with out ruining that code base?
>
>Please note that although the ALv2 gives us access to the code,
>it does not provide us the ability to use their mark, unless the
>current project maintainers explicitly assign us their mark.
I will ask the founding contributors about the marks.
Over on general@ I was drafting the email I would send to the past
contributors. Perhaps we can finish drafting it here. The current draft
reads:
---- Draft 2 -----
[Friendly intro]
A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
development of the XXX code. Normally, this is called a "donation" and
requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
licensed under Apache License 2.0, your contributions may be donated to
the ASF by replying to this email to affirm that:
1) You agree that the code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
2) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
copyright of the code you wrote. You are only granting a license to not
only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
3) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
enough contributors to this code base, the "donation" may be abandoned.
4) You understand that if this "donation" is completed, future downloads
should come from, and changes applied to, the code base in an
ASF-controlled code management and distribution system, and discussion
about the code base should happen on Apache Flex mailing lists.
5) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
wish to have continued involvement in changes to this code base, we can
discuss separately the steps to become a Committer. We would love to have
you come be part of Apache Flex if you are interested in making further
contributions.
Thanks,
Alex Harui, for the
Apache Flex PMC.
----- End Draft 2 -----
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Moving to legal-discuss (from general@incubator).
>
> This thread starts here [1] as a fork from [2]. One comment to a recent
> response from Ted is below, but the basic re-cap:
>
> I want to verify whether:
> 1) a code base that is under AL2.0 can be donated to the ASF without an
> SGA.
Legally, we are free to bring in code which is covered under
a compatible permissive license without a software grant.
Basically, this is simply us leveraging the licensed software
as any downstream user would.
With that said, we usually prefer that the codebase formally
be donated via a SGA if there is an entity that has the
authority and capability of signing the SGA.
> 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
> the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
> email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
Do you mean for the existing code or for future patches? The
question is not quite clear.
> 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
> consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
From this, I assume that you mean, for question #2, "Does the
ASF require an iCLA from all original authors of the external
codebase". In general, we do not; in fact, iCLAs are only required
for those w/ commit privs. We do require iCLAs and/or SGA from
original authors IF the incoming code requires relicensing. Since
the code is already ALv2, it does not require such relicensing.
The only condition is whether or not the authors and contributors
knew that their contributions were under ALv2. We can assume that
they knew that, since License In == License Out has some precedent
in the Open Source realm.
My suggested course of action is to send an email to the
current project's development and user lists (maybe create
some Issue or Bugz entry, etc...) with the notice that a PMC
at the ASF wishes to fork the project and maintain and develop
it and to ask for comments. If there is dissent in that community
about this course of action, I would encourage you asking both
Legal and the PMC "what to do now".
Please note that although the ALv2 gives us access to the code,
it does not provide us the ability to use their mark, unless the
current project maintainers explicitly assign us their mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho
<re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 02.12.2015, at 15:31, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> This page has a lot of answers:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> And in particular:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-moveothercopyright
>
> Yep, that section says
>
> "If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
> move the notice themselves or permit us to do so."
>
> Since the SGA doesn't say anything about preserving copyright headers
> (unlike the ALv2), does that mean that we have the permissions to remove
> the headers through the SGA - or do we require an additional explicit
> permission?
>
> Just to note: I always thought we need an additional explicit permission
> to remove the headers beyond the SGA!
>
> But reading the past posts, I wondered if I was thinking wrongly and the
> SGA would be permission enough... because otherwise, I don't understand
> this statement:
Our policy is to have the original copyright holders remove copyright
headers; given that policy, whether or not it would be legally
permissible for us to do so is moot, so lets not go there. (My best
guess is that we would be wandering into murky legal territory)
>> On 02.12.2015, at 03:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> With an ICLA/SG, we can license the code as we wish.
>>
>> With ALv2, we can sublicense (as in providing the code under a
>> different license), but still need to comply with the terms of the
>> original license. In particular, we need to treat the copyright
>> headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do.
>
> It kind of implies to me: "with an ICLA/SG, we do *not* need to treat
> the copyright headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do"
> and in the context of the discussion, I would read that in particular as
> "we do not have to preserve copyright headers of code provided under an
> ICLA/SG".
I'm not certainly how you came to that conclusion, what I meant was
stated in that parenthetical.
Not that we ever would, but we could make such code available under
the "WTFPL" license. Just like our downstream licensees can make such
code available under GPLv3 or various proprietary licenses.
Making it available under a different license does not require removal
of the copyright headers. In fact, here some guidance the SFLC
provides for incorporating code under a permissive license (such as
ALv2) into a larger work made available under GPLv3:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-40002.2
In fact, you will find code originally derived from Apache sources in
the JDK -- complete with Apache copyright headers.
Bringing this back to the original discussion, if we can't get
representatives of the original owners to voluntarily remove the
copyright headers, then we leave them intact; adding our own.
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
On 02.12.2015, at 15:31, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> This page has a lot of answers:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> And in particular:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-moveothercopyright
Yep, that section says
"If the copyright owner is still involved with the project, they should
move the notice themselves or permit us to do so."
Since the SGA doesn't say anything about preserving copyright headers
(unlike the ALv2), does that mean that we have the permissions to remove
the headers through the SGA - or do we require an additional explicit
permission?
Just to note: I always thought we need an additional explicit permission
to remove the headers beyond the SGA!
But reading the past posts, I wondered if I was thinking wrongly and the
SGA would be permission enough... because otherwise, I don't understand
this statement:
> On 02.12.2015, at 03:49, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> With an ICLA/SG, we can license the code as we wish.
>
> With ALv2, we can sublicense (as in providing the code under a
> different license), but still need to comply with the terms of the
> original license. In particular, we need to treat the copyright
> headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do.
It kind of implies to me: "with an ICLA/SG, we do *not* need to treat
the copyright headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do"
and in the context of the discussion, I would read that in particular as
"we do not have to preserve copyright headers of code provided under an
ICLA/SG".
Cheers,
-- Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho
<re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 02.12.2015, at 13:03, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeppers... Both the SGA and the ALv2 provide to us the same
>> rights: the Copyright grant and the patent grant. So one doesn't
>> give us more or "better" rights than the other. It is just that
>> that ALv2 "forces" us to comply by its conditions, which is fine
>> since we do that anyway.
>
> Or saying it the other way around, the SGA doesn't force us to
> maintain copyright notices or any other kinds of attributions.
>
> To my understanding, that gives us freedom to remove such notices
> after the donation, although we prefer it being done either before
> or by one of the donators afterwards.
>
> The ALv2, however, explicitly states that such notices must be preserved.
>
> I have to admit, I hadn't remembered that difference until I looked up the
> SGA and ALv2 again after Sam's post.
>
> So with respect to these copyright notices, we typically don't comply by the
> ALv2 conditions for donations, but by the SGA conditions, right?
This page has a lot of answers:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
And in particular:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-moveothercopyright
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>.
On 02.12.2015, at 13:03, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> Yeppers... Both the SGA and the ALv2 provide to us the same
> rights: the Copyright grant and the patent grant. So one doesn't
> give us more or "better" rights than the other. It is just that
> that ALv2 "forces" us to comply by its conditions, which is fine
> since we do that anyway.
Or saying it the other way around, the SGA doesn't force us to
maintain copyright notices or any other kinds of attributions.
To my understanding, that gives us freedom to remove such notices
after the donation, although we prefer it being done either before
or by one of the donators afterwards.
The ALv2, however, explicitly states that such notices must be preserved.
I have to admit, I hadn't remembered that difference until I looked up the
SGA and ALv2 again after Sam's post.
So with respect to these copyright notices, we typically don't comply by the
ALv2 conditions for donations, but by the SGA conditions, right?
-- Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Thanks for all of the discussion so far. I am going to cherry-pick the
things I liked out of all of the points raised in this thread and propose
this draft (still avoiding the word "fork"). I am going to open a
discussion on the Flex dev@ list about code adoption so I won't be sending
out this draft until next week at the earliest. And when we do send it
out, we will wait 30 days before considering a recipient as a
non-responder.
----- Draft 3 -------
Subject: Apache Flex Adopting XXX
[Friendly intro]
A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
development of the XXX code. Normally, this is called a "donation" and
requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
licensed under Apache License 2.0, the Apache Flex project can "adopt"
this code base with out all that paperwork. We are sending this email out
to all known contributors to inform you and to ensure there are no
conflicts or concerns.
Please reply to this email to affirm that:
1) You do not have conflicts or concerns with Apache Flex adopting XXX.
2) The code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
3) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
copyright of the code you wrote. You are only granting a license to not
only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
4) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
enough contributors to this code base, the "adoption" may be abandoned.
5) You understand that if this "adoption" is completed, future downloads
should come from, and changes applied to, the code base in an
ASF-controlled code management and distribution system, and discussion
about the code base should happen on Apache Flex mailing lists.
6) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
wish to have continued involvement in changes to this code base, we can
discuss separately the steps to become a Committer. We would love to have
you come be part of Apache Flex if you are interested in making further
contributions.
Thanks,
Alex Harui, for the
Apache Flex PMC.
----- End Draft 3 -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yeppers... Both the SGA and the ALv2 provide to us the same
rights: the Copyright grant and the patent grant. So one doesn't
give us more or "better" rights than the other. It is just that
that ALv2 "forces" us to comply by its conditions, which is fine
since we do that anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/12/2015 22:47, Greg Stein wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org
>> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >>...
>> >
>> > > 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working
>> > on it in
>> > > the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give
>> > consent in
>> > > email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
>> >
>> > Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone
>> > else
>> > anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is
>> > sufficient.
>> >
>> >
>> > To a point. See below.
>> >
>> >>...
>> >
>> > > 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give
>> > their
>> > > consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
>> >
>> > This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the
>> > code
>> > is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.
>> >
>> >
>> > You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would suggest that we leave the original copyright headers in the
>> > files, but prepend them with our standard header. ie. keep ours at the
>> > top of all files, but the old header is just below it.
>> >
>> > I believe the key difference between adopting(*) (not forking, or
>> > receiving a donation) a codebase, and one arriving under a slew of ICLAs
>> > and/or SGAs is that we do not have the right to *sublicense*.
>> >
>> > The ICLA and SGAs give us that right. That allows us to revise the
>> > copyright headers(**). It also allows us to release this stuff under
>> > ALv3 or ALv2.1 or whatever comes along in the future.
>> >
>> > Adopting a codebase? Nope. We only get to use it under the ALv2 that it
>> > had when we adopted it.
>>
>> How do you square that position with section 2 of the ALv2 that grants
>> various rights including the right to sublicense?
>
> Oh ho!!! Nice.
>
> Then never mind :-)
>
> Tho I still say "adopt" ... hehe
Actually, I agree with your previous position. And with Jim's
suggestion that this is a fork, not a donation. And (as Seinfeld
would say)... not that there is anything wrong with that. :-)
With an ICLA/SG, we can license the code as we wish.
With ALv2, we can sublicense (as in providing the code under a
different license), but still need to comply with the terms of the
original license. In particular, we need to treat the copyright
headers exactly as we ask our downstream licensees to do.
The difference is subtle. It is theoretically possible that this
could be important if we were to ever want to create an ALv3,
particularly if ALv3 is anything other than a proper superset of ALv2.
Not something that we need to be overly concerned about, but something
that we will need to capture for posterity.
> Thx.
> -g
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 01/12/2015 22:47, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org
> > <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>...
> >
> > > 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working
> on it in
> > > the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give
> consent in
> > > email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
> >
> > Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone
> else
> > anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is
> > sufficient.
> >
> >
> > To a point. See below.
> >
> >>...
> >
> > > 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give
> their
> > > consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
> >
> > This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the
> code
> > is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.
> >
> >
> > You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.
> >
> >
> > I would suggest that we leave the original copyright headers in the
> > files, but prepend them with our standard header. ie. keep ours at the
> > top of all files, but the old header is just below it.
> >
> > I believe the key difference between adopting(*) (not forking, or
> > receiving a donation) a codebase, and one arriving under a slew of ICLAs
> > and/or SGAs is that we do not have the right to *sublicense*.
> >
> > The ICLA and SGAs give us that right. That allows us to revise the
> > copyright headers(**). It also allows us to release this stuff under
> > ALv3 or ALv2.1 or whatever comes along in the future.
> >
> > Adopting a codebase? Nope. We only get to use it under the ALv2 that it
> > had when we adopted it.
>
> How do you square that position with section 2 of the ALv2 that grants
> various rights including the right to sublicense?
>
Oh ho!!! Nice.
Then never mind :-)
Tho I still say "adopt" ... hehe
Thx,
-g
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 01/12/2015 22:47, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>...
>
> > 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
> > the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
> > email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
>
> Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone else
> anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is
> sufficient.
>
>
> To a point. See below.
>
>>...
>
> > 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
> > consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
>
> This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the code
> is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.
>
>
> You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.
>
>
> I would suggest that we leave the original copyright headers in the
> files, but prepend them with our standard header. ie. keep ours at the
> top of all files, but the old header is just below it.
>
> I believe the key difference between adopting(*) (not forking, or
> receiving a donation) a codebase, and one arriving under a slew of ICLAs
> and/or SGAs is that we do not have the right to *sublicense*.
>
> The ICLA and SGAs give us that right. That allows us to revise the
> copyright headers(**). It also allows us to release this stuff under
> ALv3 or ALv2.1 or whatever comes along in the future.
>
> Adopting a codebase? Nope. We only get to use it under the ALv2 that it
> had when we adopted it.
How do you square that position with section 2 of the ALv2 that grants
various rights including the right to sublicense?
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> > 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
> > the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
> > email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
>
> Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone else
> anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is sufficient.
>
To a point. See below.
>...
> > 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
> > consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
>
> This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the code
> is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.
> You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.
>
I would suggest that we leave the original copyright headers in the files,
but prepend them with our standard header. ie. keep ours at the top of all
files, but the old header is just below it.
I believe the key difference between adopting(*) (not forking, or receiving
a donation) a codebase, and one arriving under a slew of ICLAs and/or SGAs
is that we do not have the right to *sublicense*.
The ICLA and SGAs give us that right. That allows us to revise the
copyright headers(**). It also allows us to release this stuff under ALv3
or ALv2.1 or whatever comes along in the future.
Adopting a codebase? Nope. We only get to use it under the ALv2 that it had
when we adopted it.
Cheers,
-g
(*) else-thread is a query about terminology; I think "adopting" avoids the
negative connotation of "fork", and it does not presume an active entity
"donating" something to us
(**) socially, we prefer the prior copyright holder to remove those as a
clear acknowledgement of the right to relicense, but we *can* do it
ourselves
Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Caveat: I may be a (relatively) old hand around here but I am not on the
legal committee and I can't speak for the ASF on legal matters.
On 30/11/2015 16:56, Alex Harui wrote:
> Moving to legal-discuss (from general@incubator).
>
> This thread starts here [1] as a fork from [2]. One comment to a recent
> response from Ted is below, but the basic re-cap:
>
> I want to verify whether:
> 1) a code base that is under AL2.0 can be donated to the ASF without an
> SGA.
>From a purely legal perspective if the original code is ALv2.0 you are
free to proceed without any additional paperwork.
However, socially, we choose to impose some additional constraints upon
ourselves.
> 2) if the authors of that code base have no intention of working on it in
> the future, do we require an ICLA from them or can they give consent in
> email, essentially like other folks do for patches?
Again, legally, ICLAs are only required for committers. For anyone else
anything that meets the requirement of section 5 of the ALv2 is sufficient.
Some TLPs require an ICLA for any contribution. With one noteable
historic exception (Harmony), I view that as unnecessary bureaucracy.
Some TLPs require an ICLA for 'significant' contributions. My own view
there is that if someone is contributing enough to make you think you
need an ICLA then you should have made that contributor a committer already.
So, to answer your question, an e-mail (ideally to the dev list so it is
in the archives) is fine. If they want to use private e-mail then ask
them to send it to the (P)PMC private list so it is in our private archives.
> 3) if not all past contributors to that code base respond to give their
> consent in email, can the ASF still accept this code base.
This is where it gets a little bit tricky. It helps a lot that the code
is ALv2 so we don't need to change license headers.
You will need to be careful with any copyright headers.
My own (personal) view is yes you are fine but the project should be
prepared for one of these contributors to say at some point down the
line "I don't want to use my code." Although we have the right to do so
since it is ALv2, socially, the expectation at that point is that the
PMC would remove it. To be honest, I think this is pretty unlikely.
The general rule is even if we have the legal right to use code, we
don't if the original authors don't want us to.
I would add that you should make sure that the old community is given
plenty of very clear notice of the intention to move the code to the ASF
so they have opportunity to get involved or object if they wish.
Mark
>
>
> On 11/30/15, 6:54 AM, "Ted Dunning" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
>>>
>>> In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
>>> community and continue to contribute. It has to be recorded by the
>>> secretary and reads like legal-ese I am trying for a hopefully quicker
>>> and easier informal adoption. I really don't expect the past
>>> contributors
>>> to join this new family (i.e. work on this code at the ASF). The ones
>>> who
>>> want to truly join will have to sign an ICLA and be voted in as a
>>> committer.
>>
>>
>> Yes, it does read like legalese, but no it doesn't bind anybody to be part
>> of the ASF or to continue to contribute.
>
> I agree it doesn't bind you in that way, but IMO, the ICLA assumes there
> will be future work which is one of the reasons it is long and legal.
> This makes sense in most cases because code donations usually come in with
> committers, but the essence of this thread is whether there is a less
> formal shortcut if someone has code under AL and they want us to take over
> it and don't have plans themselves to continue to work on it. If they
> want to keep working on it, we'll ask for an ICLA.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3cD
> 27B3376.5CC2A%25aharui@adobe.com%3e
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201511.mbox/%3cC
> AHfHakFcf+KRH6-ZTykaSCnPo8Xo2AKZ7Vhc4oaTWKNvDJc1JQ@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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