On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:23, Simon Phipps <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps <email@example.com> wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:
Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright
assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the
patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL
combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2
The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept contributions under just the
Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are quite a few people here who object to any form
If you send a patch to one of our mailing lists, then you're intending
for us to use it. It is thus a Contribution, and we can (re)license it
under ALv2 when it is released.
In our JIRA instance, we have a checkbox that clearly states the Contribution.
For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions
become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not
be able to take it.
I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Simon: you wrote
an article on lwn.net about how they are "bad", but you were talking
about *copyright assignment*. And yeah: that is Bad with a capital B.
But Apache's ICLA does not include an assignment. It does not *remove*
any rights from the development, so I do not understand why somebody
would be reticent to sign one.
Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's
original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since
it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it,
then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF
Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor?
If the TDF does not accept ALv2, then the code arrives under the
dual-license. Only the author can take his contribution and offer it
to the ASF under the cover of his ICLA.
If the TDF allows ALv2, then the code can be submitted to the ASF.
However, even that submission is not quite the same as contributions
under an ICLA, as I've explained elsewhere in this message. In short,
the preference to get all code submissions under the cover of an ICLA.
Code under explicit licenses needs to be treated as "upstream" and
handled accordingly to the applied license.
Fun stuff, huh?
 the person offering the feature could post a "release" of the code
under a specific license. if it is compatible, then Apache can consume
the code under that license. this is just like consuming third-party
libraries. I imagine a code might be able to say, very clearly, in
their email "these 5000 lines are offered to the ASF under the ALv2
license". that doesn't give the ASF the same kinds of rights as an
ICLA, however. we'd have to isolate those 5000 lines into
(effectively) a vendor branch of an unspecified source code release.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing? · Christoph Jopp
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing? · Simon Phipps
Re: [tdf-discuss] Triple licensing? · Alexandro Colorado
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy