On 6/17/15, 9:41 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@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
