That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership.
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: > Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I guess > that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim > copyright in the collected work? > > 17 USC ยง 201 (c) says: > "In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any > rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is > presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and > distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective > work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective > work in the same series." > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 > > This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there > additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred > this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the > ASF mandatory copywrite notice? > > --nate > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual authors >> maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a >> transgressor may be sued by both parties. >> >> HTH >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright >>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy? >>> >>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software >>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines: >>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice >>> >>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement, >>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of >>> copyright. >>> >>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt >>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>> >>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ... >>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the >>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to >>> contribute the software source code and other related intellectual >>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer >>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is >>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF. >>> >>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt >>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>> >>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they >>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations? >>> >>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a >>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements >>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement: >>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998 >>> >>> --nate
