On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 2:12 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sun Feb 01 2015 at 1:05:10 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/31/15, 9:09 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Matt Franklin >> ><m.ben.frank...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:22:15 AM Benson Margulies >> >><bimargul...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:55 AM, James Carman >> >>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> 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? >> > > The license is pretty clear about this: > > *5. Submission of Contributions*. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, > any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You > to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, > without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, > nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license > agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions. > > So basically, anything you contribute back is assumed to be under the > Apache license, unless you (the author) say otherwise or there's some other > license in play (The apache license doesn't supersede other licenses). Of > course you should consult with legal counsel before making any > contributions though. I think to Benson's point, The ASF requires that any > incoming code was put in under that license agreement or there's a SGA > stating the prior license can be converted.
Note the phrase, "intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You _to the Licensor_". Who is the licensor for a body of work not at Apache? The process has to start with a clear ownership of copyright -- the licensor. The purpose of the SGA, I think, is to get a clear answer to that question. You might be able to argue that a particular github repo is made up of an initial work with a single owner, and then contributions to it under the terms of the AL. In which case, you'd just need an SGA from that original single owner. IANAL. > > John > > >> >> -Alex >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
