On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:04:49AM -0800, Leo Simons wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am not a laywer. I don't play one on TV, though I've played one on > stage a few weeks ago. > > If I understand correctly, determining whether codebase A is a derivative > work of codebase B is somewhat hard work. We have a codebase B in the > Harmony tree and a contributor to codebase A asserting that codebase B is > a derivative of codebase A, with codebase A under a > non-apache-license-compatible license. > > We have therefore closed off all access to codebase B but have not verified > this assertion. There is some history here with codebase A and B which is > becoming clearer through mailing list discussion. > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 10:44:56PM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote: > > See below. > > > > >> So, if the Harmony project has no problem acknowledging the shared > > >> Copyright of SableVM authors on JCHEVM, I will get in touch with these > > >> authors to get their consent to a license change. > > > > > > That's excellent! I see no problem with that. We traditionally give > > > credit where credit is due for anything we redistribute. > > > > Great! Then I'll get on with that task. Please understand, though, > > that it might take one or two weeks to resolve (hoping I am not too > > optimistic). Some copyright holders might be difficult to reach. I > > will do it as fast as I can. > > Do I understand correctly that rather than go through the motions of > actually having to go through the painful route of proving or disproving > this derivative work assertion, we are going to try and make codebase A a > contribution under an apache-license-compatible license? > > I must say it sounds very tempting (I really don't want us to waste time > and energy on (dis)proving something if we don't have to. Writing code > is just much more fun) but I don't fully understand if this is enough > "due dilligence" on the ASF side. Can we leave this infringement claim > "hanging around" and just jump to "fixing the problem even if it might > not actually be one, since it has some nice side effects"?
As far as I parse the discussion, Etienne agrees to do the necessary work to contribute his & his codevelopers' codebase to us, so I believe the simplest "due dilligence" solution for the ASF would be for the infringement claim to be withdrawn, so that codebase B can be unblocked now, while the paperwork on codebase A is being finished. Alternatively, we could also keep codebase B locked down until we have the paperwork for the codebase A submission, which would also be simple, but not my favourite choice. Finally, we could do the painful thing, but I am sure nobody needs that. cheers, dalibor topic > > > cheers, > > > Leo
