Hi Jukka, The text in question states, in part, "any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor". The problem though, as you note, is determining the intent of a file attachment, especially since nowhere does it say in JIRA that such attachments are automatically covered by ASL v 2.
In the case of an attached patch, I grant you that the implication is fairly clear. But should a contributor argue at a later time that they did not actually intend to contribute the attachment to the ASF, here in the U.S. s/he would probably prevail because in no place did we inform the user that an attachment was a contribution under the ASL, nor did we have them perform an action requiring acknowledgement of the contribution. Thanks, Karl On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> The infrastructure team renamed all existing files with the grant to >> have a prefix: "ASF.LICENSE.GRANTED--". We could require the same >> thing going forward. Or, we could require patches to be attached with >> "Apache license granted" to be included in the comment text. What do >> you think? > > Section 5 of ALv2 [1] already covers the licensing of intentionally > submitted contributions, so there's no special need for such extra > markers. When there's doubt about the intention of the submitter, we > can always ask for a clarification. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting
