Sorry for the top post. It really is not as mysterious as it seems. The legal-discuss@ list is where we should go for clarifications if this community has trouble with specific answers.
The main emphasis about the voluntary contribution policy is about code contributed to and distributed by this project within our source code releases. If code is contributed then there are various ways the contribution should be handled. In general patches contributed via bugzilla are assumed to be safely AL v2,0. All project committers have signed a Contributors License Agreement. Larger contributions like Oracle's and IBM's go through an SGA process and gene...@incubator.apache.org is involved either as a incubating project or as ip clearance. In all cases there is some oversight and public record. Anyone can subscribe to the commit mailing list. If part of the source archive or a commit is called into question then the question is dealt with by evaluating the facts. The PMC has removed inappropriate contributions. These discussions are private and have occurred. We always need to discuss specific examples in the project first. Adding project dependencies is a different question. In that case license and use are more determinant. The boundary between operating environment may come into play. Answers on legal-discuss do vary and LGPL system libraries on Linux may be allowed, depending on the case. We need to be able to interpret here first. We benefit when the community perceives correct ip requirements for contribution. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Dec 29, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:00 >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording >> >> >> >>> 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? > [orcmid] > > I suggest you ask this specific question on the dev@ community.apache.org > list or the general@ incubator.apache.org list where you will find more about > the notion of "willing contribution." This gets asked regularly, even about > using ALv2 code from other Apache Projects. > > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
