| |||||||||||||
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal statusPriority of cleaning up unclear legal statusPosted Jan 18, 2013 15:49 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status by rcweir Parent article: A discordant symphony
"Please refer to the list contained in the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement for more information."
What extra information does that list contain? If the information contained within it isn't relevant, why am I being asked to refer to it?
(Log in to post comments)
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:05 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (subscriber, #48888) [Link]
You're not. missing anything. I've now removed that line to avoid the confusion that it was obviously causing.
Now would you agree that the status is clear, based on the README and the SGA license?
Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:21 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I'd suggest two further changes:
1) Add an explicit link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt and the revision number in the preamble, just to avoid any potential doubts about whether "a Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement ("SGA ")" refers to the standard Apache one or a different one negotiated by IBM and the Foundation (in much the same way as "released under the terms of the GNU GPL" is ambiguous as to which version it refers to).
2) Add "These materials are contributed under the SGA" to point (2)
I think that those would make the intended copyright status completely unambiguous, but I think the change you've already made goes a long way.
|
|||||||||||||