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 2015/06/17 15:11:11 UTC
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code. What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the CC files?
-Alex
From: Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 3:09 AM
To: "dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org<ma...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>" <de...@groovy.incubator.apache.org>>
Cc: legal-discuss <le...@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>>:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet<http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge<http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...I am not the expert like Bertrand...
This is flattering but unfortunately not true when it comes to legal stuff ;-)
You might notice a lot of "I think" and "probably" in my statements -
if people need actual legal advice I'm not the one to provide it. What
I know well is how the ASF works.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
I would prefer waiting for the relicensing.
2015-06-19 10:16 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Cédric Champeau
> <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc
> files. It
> > means more tweaking of our Gradle script...
>
> So I guess the question is whether you guys want to wait for the
> relicensing to be done before making the first Apache release. Once
> GROOVY-7470 is resolved I think we need an incubator PMC vote to
> ratify the decision, which lasts at least 72 hours.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Cédric Champeau
<ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc files. It
> means more tweaking of our Gradle script...
So I guess the question is whether you guys want to wait for the
relicensing to be done before making the first Apache release. Once
GROOVY-7470 is resolved I think we need an incubator PMC vote to
ratify the decision, which lasts at least 72 hours.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
Le 18 juin 2015 07:08, "Paul King" <pa...@asert.com.au> a écrit :
>
> On 18/06/2015 2:49 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs
and
>>> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue
should
>>> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation,
allowing
>>> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
>>> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our
best
>>> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
>>> missed.
>>
>>
>> It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in the
worst case, and have it instead on another page in another repository. In
other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase. So it is in my
eyes no critical part at all.
>>
>> bye blackdrag
>>
>
> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
>
It's worth noting that the build will fail if we remove the adoc files. It
means more tweaking of our Gradle script.
> Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against
all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide
is correct.
>
> How does this process sound?
>
> * We create a Jira issue
> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to
indicate by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release
adoc under ASLv2
> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if
needed to complete the process.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7470 ...
Looks good to me, as I said elsewhere once that's ready I suggest
asking for the Incubator PMC's approval with a [VOTE] on
general@incubator.a.o, that points to that ticket.
-Bertrand
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7470
On 18/06/2015 3:11 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> How does this process sound?
>>
>> * We create a Jira issue
>> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate
>> by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under
>> ASLv2
>> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed
>> to complete the process.
>
> IANAL (and I don't think anybody on this thread is) but this process looks
> reasonable to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 18.06.2015 07:11, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
>> release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
>> release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
>
> Correct. There's still a separate issue of where it gets published -- but I'm
> sure we can manage.
currently we don't use Apache web space for this kind of thing, so for
now there is no problem with the publishing
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator
> release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source
> release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
Correct. There's still a separate issue of where it gets published -- but I'm
sure we can manage.
> Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against
> all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide is
> correct.
>
> How does this process sound?
>
> * We create a Jira issue
> * Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate
> by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under
> ASLv2
> * Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed
> to complete the process.
IANAL (and I don't think anybody on this thread is) but this process looks
reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
On 18/06/2015 2:49 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
> [...]
>> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
>> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
>> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
>> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
>> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
>> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
>> missed.
>
> It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase. So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
>
> bye blackdrag
>
I agree with Jochen in that I wouldn't see this as blocking an incubator release. We can temporarily elide the user guide etc. from the source release. We can still publish it to a web site in the interim.
Long term, we want to keep it all together though - we have tests against all sample code in the guide to ensure whenever we do a release the guide is correct.
How does this process sound?
* We create a Jira issue
* Get all adoc (guide) contributors that have Apache Jira access to indicate by way of comment on that issue that they are happy to release adoc under ASLv2
* Potentially add other artifacts (emails/scanned documents) later if needed to complete the process.
Cheers, Paul.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
> missed.
It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in
the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another
repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase.
So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow
>issuing
>the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain
>available
>under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
>necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
>
>I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such
>contributors.
>Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
Is this truly the only possible solution? Would the ASF accept emails on
dev@groovy from these 20 people giving the one person or entity that did
sign the SGA permission to re-license their work? The Exhibit A for
additional SGAs for contributors that did not contribute entire files will
be difficult to describe. If the right to re-license was part of an
existing contributor agreement prior to donation, then this wouldn’t be an
issue.
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 17.06.2015 18:41, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
> The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
> augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
> have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
> both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
> decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
> efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
> missed.
It is not like all javadoc comments are CC-BY-SA. It is about additional
documentation like a user guide. The distribution can go without it in
the worst case, and have it instead on another page in another
repository. In other words, it is in no way elementary for the codebase.
So it is in my eyes no critical part at all.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow
>issuing
>the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain
>available
>under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
>necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
>
>I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such
>contributors.
>Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
Is this truly the only possible solution? Would the ASF accept emails on
dev@groovy from these 20 people giving the one person or entity that did
sign the SGA permission to re-license their work? The Exhibit A for
additional SGAs for contributors that did not contribute entire files will
be difficult to describe. If the right to re-license was part of an
existing contributor agreement prior to donation, then this wouldn’t be an
issue.
-Alex
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the
> expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The
> initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had
> accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I
> needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed
> an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That
> was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before
> Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with
> the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to
> donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an
> acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not
> explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and
> get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but
> don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code.
> What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the
> CC files?
For a open source codebase which is already under ALv2 and has many copyright
holders, tracking down every last contributor and getting them to sign the SGA
is a costly exercise with questionable benefit. In the case of Groovy, the
SGA is only signed by a single contributor. It's my understanding that the
importation of Subversion followed this model, as it was mentioned as
precedent. Here is the head of the general@incubator discussion thread:
http://s.apache.org/4NM
The flawed assumption we were operating under, though, was that the
intellectual property being imported was entirely ALv2. In this case, the
code is all ALv2, but the docs are not.
The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow issuing
the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain available
under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such contributors.
Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
missed.
On a practical note for the folks reading this on legal-discuss@apache: When I
coordinated an 18-entity SGA back in 2010, best practices were not clear for
executing an SGA with multiple geographically dispersed copyright holders.
(Clearly you don't want to be shipping a single paper document all over the
globe.) Has the process been formalized since then?
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> ...I am not the expert like Bertrand...
This is flattering but unfortunately not true when it comes to legal stuff ;-)
You might notice a lot of "I think" and "probably" in my statements -
if people need actual legal advice I'm not the one to provide it. What
I know well is how the ASF works.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the
distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / wh...
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the
> expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The
> initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had
> accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I
> needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed
> an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That
> was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before
> Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with
> the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to
> donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an
> acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not
> explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and
> get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but
> don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code.
> What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the
> CC files?
For a open source codebase which is already under ALv2 and has many copyright
holders, tracking down every last contributor and getting them to sign the SGA
is a costly exercise with questionable benefit. In the case of Groovy, the
SGA is only signed by a single contributor. It's my understanding that the
importation of Subversion followed this model, as it was mentioned as
precedent. Here is the head of the general@incubator discussion thread:
http://s.apache.org/4NM
The flawed assumption we were operating under, though, was that the
intellectual property being imported was entirely ALv2. In this case, the
code is all ALv2, but the docs are not.
The consequence is that the Groovy SGA is *not* sufficient to allow issuing
the documentation files under an ALv2 license -- they must remain available
under only the existing CC-BY-SA license for now. Instead, it will be
necessary to contact all the contributors and get them to sign an SGA.
I am relieved to hear an estimate that there are "20 or so" such contributors.
Coordinating a 20-person SGA, though tedious, is a reasonable undertaking.
The Incubator should revisit its practices around such multi-party SGAs and
augment the process with additional safeguards. Ideally this issue should
have been caught prior to the VOTE to accept Groovy for incubation, allowing
both the Incubator PMC and the Groovy community to make a more informed
decision about the requirements of incubating at Apache. Despite our best
efforts over an extended discussion period, multiple opportunities were
missed.
On a practical note for the folks reading this on legal-discuss@apache: When I
coordinated an 18-entity SGA back in 2010, best practices were not clear for
executing an SGA with multiple geographically dispersed copyright holders.
(Clearly you don't want to be shipping a single paper document all over the
globe.) Has the process been formalized since then?
Marvin Humphrey
Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution?
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 17/06/15 15:11, Alex Harui a écrit :
> IMO, it depends on whether the Grant was executed correctly. I am not the expert like Bertrand, but I remember this from my incubation days: The initial code base was “owned” by Adobe, but was already open source and had accepted contributions from several people. Before I submitted the grant, I needed to convince the legal team at Adobe that all contributors had signed an agreement that gave Adobe the right to donate their contribution. That was, in fact, part of the contributors agreement folks had to sign before Adobe would accept their patches so we were good to go, but it left me with the impression that not all contribution agreements give the right to donate. In fact, for a portion of the code Adobe had received as part of an acquisition of a smaller company, the terms of the acquisition were not explicit that Adobe could donate the acquired code, so we had to go back and get signatures from the owners of the acquired code.
>
> Some contributor agreements give one entity a license to use some code, but don’t give that entity the right to give others a license to that code. What documentation do you have on the agreement for the contributors of the CC files?
The original Groovy code was under an AL 2.0 license (except teh doco,
which was under CC-BY_SA-3.0). Considering that, what could be the
problem with the current grant ?