On Sep 26, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
W/o transfer of copyright to the ASF, we'd simply be redistributing IBMs copyrighted work. I can certainly see the argument that it isn't so bad, as the software is under the AL2, but this is a departure from how we historically operate, or so we believed.
I can't speak to your beliefs, but to date all software grants to date have merely been merely non-exclusive licenses. Check out Roy's post to board@ on 9/23/2004 on this matter, with a subject line of "Re: Copyright attributions in software-granted works".
It's certainly true, and I think that this isn't compatible in what we thought we've been doing for 9.5 years. As Roy said :
"[which was news to me, given that we've been doing the single copyright thing for 9.5 years now and nobody mentioned it before]."
So we've been doing it wrong, and here's the chance to do it right.
If the code were to remain 100% IBM, then Derby certainly does not belong at the ASF. If/when a diverse community of contributors are established, then having the ASF distribute the collective works of a set of contributors, each having provided an explicit license to for the ASF to do so, is EXACTLY how the ASF has operated.
Sure - right now, it's 100% IBM until people start contributing. IBM can fix that right now by just assigning copyright. I'm having trouble understanding why a community member such as IBM with such good support of open-source here at the ASF and elsewhere has a problem with this.
Copyright assignment may be the best option available, but it is a significant departure from how the ASF has historically operated, not the other way around.
That's certainly true - what is also true is that is how we thought we were operating. Turns out, that's not true. But we can fix that.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
