Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no longer open source (by OSD anyway)?
This is a strange discussion thread. On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 12:36, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 10/2/03 4:05 "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members > >> are the legal > >> *owners* of the software that is available under the Apache > >> Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to > >> becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one > >> or more projects. It seems perfectly reasonable that > >> decisions on the license under which that software is > >> licensed should be made by the people that own it. > > > > I'm curious. What is the legal basis for this claim of ownership? > > The fact that each contributor, prior access to our CVS repository, signs a > paper saying that for whatever goes in CVS, he assigns copyright and > ownership of the code to the ASF... No more no less than what any random > employee of a software company does with his employer... > > Pier > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
