On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Gianugo Rabellino > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [...] Although I would >> argue that no one pointed out the scary elephant in the room, that is >> the fact that it is unclear whether David intended to contribute his >> code under the ICLA or under the AL. I'm still wary of signing off a >> release where, at a very least, we have to force our hand and make a >> decision on someone else's IP that while likely being licensed to us >> properly, maybe it's not. > > I think it's quite clear that David is licensing his copyright under > the CLA, not under the Apache license. To quote from his resignation > email: > > "PS -- My resignation in no way abrogates any rights in the > copywritten materials that I have licensed to the ASF under my CLA" > > It's possible that originally David was under the impression that the > CLA license contained exactly the same restrictions as the Apache 2.0 > license, which is not the case. However, I think he clarified that for > himself, or more likely meant something entirely different than what > was construed in the original discussion. In this case he's being > painstakingly clear in his wording.
If everyone here is happy with a strong and explicit previous claim, followed by a mild concession in the context of negative phrasing (not abrogating any right), I'm fine. But I'd rather have something more explicit in that direction. -- Gianugo Rabellino M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846 Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
