Here's my current understanding. 1. contrib.xml makes the distinction between "core" and "optional" contributions of source code via patches supplied by non-committers. Core source code contributions must have copyright assigned to Apache. Optional contributions do not. Contributions of documentation are not discussed.
2. The Contributor License Agreement page (http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html) states that contributions from committers, not non-committers, are governed by licenses, not copyright assignments. How should we extend this language to cover non-committer contributions of documentation? a. If you extend the "spirit" of contrib.xml to documentation, then the decision (license or assignment) is based on how "core" or "optional" you consider the documentation. b. If you extend the "spirit" of the Contributor License Agreement, then non-committer contributions should be governed by licensing also, not assignment. Why should it be more restrictive? IMO, both approaches suggest licensing, not assignment. In other words, contributors of documentation in the form of patches must agree to provide Apache a "non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, no-charge, transferable copyright license to use, execute, prepare derivative works of, and distribute ... " for their contributions. I don't see why assignment is necessary. In fact, licensing may create more incentives for would-be authors, because it allows more opportunities for their work to be published. This doesn't hurt, in fact, it helps advance Cocoon. If you agree, I'll update contrib.xml (and other author docs) to reflect that understanding. If this is incorrect, then please advise. Thanks for your patience. Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
