[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

[Randall Leeds]

So just to be sure, you're saying "this is another reason why the Apache
license is good" and you support the change?

I ask because your message was in reply to mine about asking permission
from all contributors to change to Apache, so I was trying to understand
whether your pointing out that clause had any bearing on that.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 10:40 Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:

> https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> I think that the form speaks for itself. Apache foundation uses legal help
> to keep its affairs in order; I believe it to be sound practice when
> external contributors (nor employees of the firm) make contributions to the
> codebase.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
> wrote:
>
>> As I understand that piece, it only applies to the permission seeking (in
>> the negative) insofar as we have any doubts about the originality of
>> authors' contributions and therefore their ability to consent to the change.
>>
>> Unless we have some suspicion about the origin of code currently in the
>> project (I haven't had or seen any) then this is just another benefit of
>> switching (n
>>
>> I only write this to be sure I understand why you're bringing it up.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 09:54 Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Apache foundation and others use a "license-like" contract which
>>> requires that contributors certify that they own the rights to their
>>> contributions, things like that.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That sounds like a plan. Given that we haven't heard negative reactions
>>>> from the community here, we are simply discussing permission from authors.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say let's open the issue.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 06:53 Benjamin Young <bigbluehat at hypothes.is>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:54 PM Andrew Magliozzi <
>>>>>> andrew at finalsclub.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This license simplification proposal has dropped off a little, and I
>>>>>>> wanted to bring it back up.  It's going to be important, particularly if we
>>>>>>> decide to pursue the Apache Foundation Incubator program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Andrew.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, much thanks, Drew! I didn't want to be the only one banging this
>>>>> drum. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below is a list of all Annotator contributors (according to
>>>>>>> GitHub).  If you see your handle on that list, please try to chime in on
>>>>>>> this topic.   Note: the closer you are to the top, the more your opinion
>>>>>>> matters!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a strong +1 on switching the license. I will note that we should
>>>>>> be careful about "the more your opinion matters". While people near the top
>>>>>> may be influential in the project community, ultimately we cannot relicense
>>>>>> the work of other people without their permission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think "getting permission" to relicense is probably what we should
>>>>> focus the conversation on.
>>>>>
>>>>> One way to come at this is to post a GitHub issue which mentions each
>>>>> of these people and asks, simply (+ some explanatory ephemera):
>>>>>  - Are you OK re-licensing your contributions to Annotator under the
>>>>> Apache License 2.0?
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is most folks won't actually care. If there is debate, we can
>>>>> move it back to the mailing list per-issue raised.
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal being that we get a reference-able record of +1's from each
>>>>> of these folks--or know who we haven't heard from.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could try and do this over email, but the location would be less
>>>>> "permanent" and harder to follow / track / reference later.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, this is how Twitter did it when they changed the Bootstrap
>>>>> license prior to 3.0 shipping. It worked well enough (I'd forgotten I'd
>>>>> even had patches in Bootstrap :-P), and didn't seem to take terribly long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound like a plan?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to start the issue, but since I'm not a project owner it
>>>>> might look odd / less official.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>> Benjamin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> annotator-dev mailing list
>>>> annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20150618/20c43998/attachment-0004.html>