Re: UMD license

When I looked at the two options in [1], they seemed to be either
(a) a BSD-like license without assignment of copyright, or (b)
a GPLv2 license *with* a copyright assignment form and contributor's
agreement, and a shirt.

So, at my workplace, there is some flexibility for me to contribute
to open source upstream projects without having to go through the
intellectual-property officers, under typical circumstances. A regular
BSD license would fall under "typical circumstances", but the UMD
license, as written, is unusual because it turns all the "copyright
holders" and "contributors" into UMD.

As for GPLv2, there are probably decent chances I could get that
approved, but with the contributor agreement and assignment form
to be signed, there are additional layers of people in suits whom
I would have to track down, and present to, and await their verdict.

I'd rather follow a path of less friction if there is one. (Honestly,
I think the guys in suits would prefer that too; I doubt they really
want to be brought in every time a staff admin wants to contribute
to a backup system, they want to be looking at the big ideas with
revenue potential.)

Thanks for weighing in,
-Chap


On 08/08/17 09:20, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> Maybe I missed the beginning of this thread -- are you unable to contribute
> under GPLv2?
> 
> Yes, the attribution to UM (which doesn't even really want it anymore..)
> was what drove us to re-license, and I chose GPLv2 in part since it did a
> good job of constraining Zmanda's behavior with respect to Amanda as a
> whole.  So now the options are bsaically:
> 
>  1. contribute as yourself under GPL; or
>  2. contribute as UM (via the UM license) and have your contribution then
> incorporated into a GPL product and thus be covered by GPL
> 
> so if we add a third option it will be very similar to the second, meaning
> you are still effectively contributing under GPLv2, just without
> disclaiming ownership.
> 
> Dustin
> 
> 2017-08-07 18:39 GMT-04:00 Chapman Flack <[email protected]>:
> 
>> Hi Jean-Louis,
>>
>> Thanks - I'll check with the higher-ups, but I think the straight
>> BSD license will be easy to get cleared.
>>
>> -Chap
>>
>> On 08/07/2017 10:21 AM, Jean-Louis Martineau wrote:
>>> Hi Chapman,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay, been in vacation and busy.
>>>
>>> Is it correct for you if I add the attached 'COPYRIGHT.BSD' file and
>>> allow you to release under that license?
>>>
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19/06/17 10:20 AM, Chapman Flack wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> If a contribution is made under the UMD license, which is called
>>>> "BSD-style" in [1], does that mean the exact language in [2], or
>>>> with edits to show the copyright held by the contributor (as [1]
>>>> provides)?
>>>>
>>>> When I compare it to an unaltered 3-clause BSD license [3],
>>>> the UMD license seems to have taken out all references to
>>>> "copyright holders" and "contributors" and replaced them
>>>> with only "U.M." If new files get contributed with exactly that
>>>> wording at the top, it's not clear any interests of the contributor
>>>> are protected.
>>>>
>>>> I see that there have been past contributions from my place of work
>>>> (by John R. Jackson) and they were made under UMD, and I tried looking
>>>> through the repo to find the exact header at the top of any file he
>>>> may have contributed, but all I could find was a file with
>>>> no header at the top, so not quite the conclusive example I
>>>> was looking for. :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Chap
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Licensing_your_Contribution
>>>> <http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Licensing_your_Contribution>
>>>> [2]: https://github.com/zmanda/amanda/blob/tags/3_2_3/COPYRIGHT
>>>> <https://github.com/zmanda/amanda/blob/tags/3_2_3/COPYRIGHT>
>>>> [3]: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>>>> <https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause>
>>> This message is the property of CARBONITE, INC. and may contain
>>> confidential or privileged information.
>>> If this message has been delivered to you by mistake, then do not copy
>>> or deliver this message to anyone.  Instead, destroy it and notify me by
>>> reply e-mail
>>>
>>
>>
>