Quantcast

No more license check box after Friday

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

No more license check box after Friday

Katherine Marsden-2
I received a notice that as part of the Friday Jira "upgrade"  we will
be using the Apache license plugin. I am not sure why, but  I guess that
means that we  should be extra careful to get an ICLA or explicit  
license in a Jira comment for every patch, even very simple ones.

Kathey





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: No more license check box after Friday

Rick Hillegas
On 8/22/12 9:40 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
> I received a notice that as part of the Friday Jira "upgrade"  we will
> be using the Apache license plugin. I am not sure why, but  I guess
> that means that we  should be extra careful to get an ICLA or
> explicit  license in a Jira comment for every patch, even very simple
> ones.
>
> Kathey
Hi Kathey,

It looks like we all missed the discussion of this change. A clarifying
discussion is now happening on the infrastructure mailing list under the
subject "Upcoming JIRA Upgrade". Here's what Doug Cutting has just said:

"Contributions to Apache-licensed software are under the terms of the
license by default:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#contributions

The only purpose of the checkbox was to permit folks to attach things
that were *not* intended to be contributions.  The same thing can be
accomplished without the checkbox by stating in a comment that the
attachment is not intended for contribution."

Here is the passage from the Apache license cited by Doug:

"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."

I tend to agree with Doug. We should assume that all contributions are
licensed to Apache unless the contributor explicitly says otherwise. I
don't see the need for requiring an explicit grant in every attachment
comment.

Thanks,
-Rick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: No more license check box after Friday

Myrna van Lunteren
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Rick Hillegas
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/22/12 9:40 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
>>
>> I received a notice that as part of the Friday Jira "upgrade"  we will be
>> using the Apache license plugin. I am not sure why, but  I guess that means
>> that we  should be extra careful to get an ICLA or explicit  license in a
>> Jira comment for every patch, even very simple ones.
>>
>> Kathey
>
> Hi Kathey,
>
> It looks like we all missed the discussion of this change. A clarifying
> discussion is now happening on the infrastructure mailing list under the
> subject "Upcoming JIRA Upgrade". Here's what Doug Cutting has just said:
>
> "Contributions to Apache-licensed software are under the terms of the
> license by default:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#contributions
>
> The only purpose of the checkbox was to permit folks to attach things
> that were *not* intended to be contributions.  The same thing can be
> accomplished without the checkbox by stating in a comment that the
> attachment is not intended for contribution."
>
> Here is the passage from the Apache license cited by Doug:
>
> "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."
>
> I tend to agree with Doug. We should assume that all contributions are
> licensed to Apache unless the contributor explicitly says otherwise. I don't
> see the need for requiring an explicit grant in every attachment comment.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
Thanks Kathey, Rick,

I didn't realize that clause was in the license...
I agree we only need to add a comment if something is *not* intended
for contribution.
We just need to continue vigilance with contributions by folks without ICLAs.

Myrna
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: No more license check box after Friday

Katherine Marsden-2
In reply to this post by Rick Hillegas
On 8/22/2012 10:13 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with Doug. We should assume that all contributions are
> licensed to Apache unless the contributor explicitly says otherwise. I
> don't see the need for requiring an explicit grant in every attachment
> comment.

Thank you Rick for the clarification.  That sounds good to me.

Kathey


Loading...