On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > [1] "I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork, > > or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good. " > > > > [2] "At Apache, all contributions are voluntary. We do not accept code > > from copyright owners who don't want us to have it, even if we have > > the legal right to adopt it for other reasons. > > These aren't necessarily contradictory. At least part of what Roy's > saying is that if someone doesn't intend to distribute their software > under the Apache license then we should not take it. But I think if > someone's clearly established their intent to publish a body of software > under the Apache license and a new community forms around that software > that's distinct from its original authors, then we can consider housing > that community. In the case Roy made the comment I quoted on, the code had been distributed under the Apache License. The license was being changed to Eclipse. We asked whether the Apache Licensed version could be brought into the ASF. The answer was effectively, not without the owner's permission. I don't have a problem with that answer. I also don't have a problem with your answer above. I do have a problem giving a different answer based on who the involved parties are. Ralph
