On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > The TL;DR: > > Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE > and NOTICE files for 3rd party software, and something about the > software files too. > > It does not address how such software comes into a project's > hands. It is not about acceptance of such software. No > precedent about that should be read into the policy on how to > satisfy the third-party license and conditions for notices. > > - Dennis
If we go back to the acceptable licenses for distribution with ALv2 -- http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Combined with the instructions for using these "acceptable" products/ portions, why is it not sufficient to accept that the code came into the project's hands by virtue of the license used for the software? In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if that is the case, why are any additional requests needed? > > MORE CONTEXT > > Whenever the question about voluntary contributions (by someone > asserting the right to do so) comes up, as it does regularly on a > couple of ASF lists, the discussion invariably ends up affirming > that voluntary contribution is expected. > > There are other nuances. One is that the original license, when > different than the ALv2, is accounted for in some manner and that > copyright notices are not mucked with (except by someone having > the right to do that). Another is that, when the Apache Project > is downstream in this case, patches and fixes will be contributed > back when appropriate under the original license. > > We have seen relevant cases on this project. > > In general, it is necessary to address specific cases and > determine what the precise situation requires. The key take-away > for me is that there is no precedent whatsoever with regard to > appropriation of third-party code into a project. To me, this explanation means specific licensing is somewhat irrelevant. Any exceptions > are narrow and specific and not to be taken as precedents. > > This falls out under the umbrella of the Apache Software > Foundation projects producing software as a public good. That > fundamental principle extends to how ASF projects operate as good > open-source citizens and do so without any requirement for > reciprocity but as a matter of good will. This seems to be > fundamental to the DNA of the Apache Software Foundation. I understand this but I still remain concerned about the additional requirements for use assuming the author/developer chose a license that was acceptable for his/her specific use, with the intention that the license would fully cover use without the need for explicit permission. > > It is attention to this sort of thing that Project Management > Committees are accountable for, with assistance of the > legal-discuss and other lists when needed. > > - Dennis > >> -----Original Message----- From: Kay Schenk >> [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 >> 10:04 To: OOo Apache <dev@openoffice.apache.org> Subject: Re: >> [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti >> <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Kay Schenk wrote: >>> >>>> OK, I will look for something like this, or please reply to >>>> this thread if you find something. >>>> >>> >>> I've found it mentioned here, even though this is not a >>> policy page: >>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html "The >>> ASF only accepts voluntary contributions of software and >>> documentation that are expressly licensed to The ASF under an >>> approved >> open >>> source license". >>> >> >> Thanks. This seems much more stringent to the wording on the >> acceptable 3rd pa rty licensing page where only a reference >> in a NOTICE file to the original work is required. I will >> investigate further before changing anything. >> >> >> >>> >>> That said, if you still wish to edit the page I'm not >>> opposing. I >> simply >>> pointed out that it is correct as it is now. If we reword it >>> the way >> you >>> propose, it will still be correct. >>> >>> >>> Regards, Andrea. >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: >>> dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> MzK >> >> “I appreciate failure. Failure means that an attempt was made, >> and a lesson can be learned. As long as we’re alive after the >> effort, there is a chance for success the next time around.” -- >> George Tekai, "Oh Myyy!" > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > -- -------------------------------------------- MzK “I appreciate failure. Failure means that an attempt was made, and a lesson can be learned. As long as we’re alive after the effort, there is a chance for success the next time around.” -- George Tekai, "Oh Myyy!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
