On 1/31/15, 9:09 AM, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt Franklin ><[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:22:15 AM Benson Margulies >><[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:55 AM, James Carman >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Are there guidelines for these "usual considerations"? >>> >>>For all the small stuff, the safe path is to get an ICLA from each >>> committer, and an email message positively stating an intent to donate >>> the code. >> >> >> Yes, this is the safest approach; but, may not be necessary for changes >> that do not represent significant IP. For instance, our projects accept >> minor contributions through JIRA, without an ICLA. > >There's a critical distinction here. Once you have released a product >under the Apache license, people can contribute new things to it under >the terms of the license. The license has very specific language: if >you take code from us, and then send us a contribution (email, JIRA, >github PR, carrier pigeon) that is a derivative of what you took, you >are granting the code to the Foundation. > >That doesn't help with the initial import of a project from github or >bitbucket or Jupiter or Mars; none of those contributions met the >criteria in the license of sending a contribution back to the >Foundation, because the code wasn't here in the first place. Just curious, what if the code was under AL but not at Apache? -Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
