On 31 January 2012 10:44, Ate Douma <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/31/2012 11:23 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>
... >> Why? There is an SLA on file, the original copyright remains with the >> donating institutions and they can move it back here whenever they >> like (assuming licence issues are addressed first) > > Sure, but AFAIK once they need to be 'brought back', we'll have to go > through the same IP Clearance rounds again anyway, as because these no > longer were maintained (guarded) on ASF hardware, we cannot and will not > assume them to be the same (upfront) as te original donations. > That's all rather theoretical I agree, but nonetheless from a legal POV > quite critical. Hmmmm.... yes... I can see some policy wonks getting all worked up about that. We could do without an endless discussion about the written rules vs. the intent of the rules (i.e we can demonstrate no writes to the code between the various dates). It would be faster to fix the issues here than have that argument with the broader community. Assuming the PPMC is not 100% certain that they will never want the code in question I withdraw my suggestion. Ate raises important points. Ross
