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 ?
