On Jul 28, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
Been watching this debate and thought I should chime in that Sun
has more than one community where the *source* is under one license
(say LGPL for instance) but the *mail lists* are explicitly under
more liberal terms of use. Why are you all assuming that they mail
list must be under a source code license?
We want to make sure that [source] contributions that are from or
derived from the mail lists are able to be used in the project.
geir
Danese
On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 28, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2005 22:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Sure - every mail list at the ASF has been understood to be
under the
Apache License for contributions, and if you choose to submit
something to a mail list that isn't intended for people to use, you
mark it as "NOT A CONTRIBUTION".
Without this, no one could take anything from mail lists and use in
projects because they wouldn't have been contributed under a
license
we accept.
I doubt this is legally binding to any degree what so ever. ( A
formal
reference to what you claim would also be interesting, since
after 7 years on
various ASF mailing lists, I have never come across that
contributions over
mail has implicit licensing infered by the non Copyright holder...)
It's always been my assumption that all contributions are under
the Apache License, and we wished to make it explicit.
With the Harmony list, we can certainly make it so - there are no
contributions by people not subscribed, so we can clearly make the
terms clear.
We want to make sure that anything that comes into SVN has a clear
pedigree, both for copyright and any patent licenses owned by the
contributor.
Without a Copyright notice inside a mail ( and reference to any
licensing
attached to that ) posted on a globally public mailing list,
would for sure
be considered belonging to the public domain, where a "courtesy
of..." is
ethically right, but not required, in case of use.
I'm not sure about that.
IIUIC;
If I, the Contributor, have claims to something I publicly
display, such
display must contain any such claims. Without informing the
audience, I have
given up such claims.
That's not true at all.
IANAL, but we could check whether I am out sailing completely or
not.
Helm's alee... :)
If this is case, then it is up to each mailing list participant
to protect the
works or forfeit the claims at his/her own discretion. Which "by
default"
then ends up being, chat along as much as you wish and anyone do
whatever
they like with the content of such discussion.
I'm not sure if this is true. If it is, I don't think it makes
life better for us...
geir
Cheers
Niclas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
