Contribution licensing

Craig Latta craig at netjam.org
Wed Mar 21 17:52:47 UTC 2007


Hi Daniel--

     Ron wrote:

> We should be getting and following real legal advice not guessing...

     I responded:

> That's what we're doing. I'm in contact with Viewpoints' legal
> counsel, via Kim Rose, and with counsel at the Software Freedom Law
> Center.

     You responded:

> Ok - so one of those two has seen the actual contribution form that
> was sent, and the rest of the detailed plan, and confirmed it has the
> legal effect we are after?

     Yes, they both have.

     You continue:

> A couple of comments about the agreement in case you send out more in
> the future...

     We certainly intend to send out more agreements, since there are
still contributors we haven't been able to contact yet. However, I think
it's extremely unlikely that the agreement will change; we want everyone
to sign the same agreement and getting everyone to sign anything is very
difficult, simply due to logistics.

> It is not very explicit about what contributions I agree to license
> under the MIT license.

     The agreement specifies code contributed to Squeak in the past by
the contributor. According to Viewpoints legal counsel, who wrote the
agreement, this is sufficiently explicit. So...

> Those in a released squeak-dev image?

     Yes.

> Those ever released in any kind of public image?

     Yes.

> Those ever sent to the mailing list?

     Yes.

> In the same vein, it does not specify which contributions in a
> temporal sense...

     Yes it does. It specifies code contributed to Squeak in the past by
the contributor. So...

> Only past contributions?

     Yes.

> All future contributions?

     No, and I think this is as it should be. What we're trying to do
here is establish appropriately permissive license terms for what we had
up to this point. After that, under those permissive terms, any entity
(such as the Squeak Foundation) is at liberty to take that body of code
and make releases under the terms they prefer (subject to the modest
requirements of the MIT license cited in the agreement).

     Going forward, I advocate requiring an explicit licensing statement
from each contributor for each future contribution, and that the terms
be those of the MIT license. It won't be hard, and, let's face it, if we
did otherwise we would continue to chew up large amounts of time
discussing licensing.

> The text suggests to me that past contributions are meant, but this is
> implicit.

     I think it's quite explicit, by the simple use of the past tense
("Supplier has contributed source code").

> If so, the text should include either a particular date or allow me to
> enter one.

     It did, in the first sentence ("Effective Date"). And it's not
merely allowing you to enter the date, it's a requirement, along with
your name and address.

> Have these been considered by the board and counsel?

     Yes.

> If they are moot, I would be grateful for an explanation.

     They're not moot, and I hope I've given a thorough and clear
explanation all the same. (Please accept my apologies if it was *too*
thorough :).


     thanks again,

-C

-- 
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list