On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:24 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > So I figured I'd add some additional thoughts. There are process > problems, and if you want to understand why we consider this so > important, take a look at this post[1] by Brett Porter from a few > months back. IMO getting the process right is vital to our success as > a project, but it isn't the only problem. > > There's also an IP issue here. If you are developing in the ASF repo, > we are relatively assured that you are complying with the CLA that you > signed when you were invited as a committer. When massive amounts of > code come flying in as a single commit, and especially when we are > aware that the code has been released by another entity who likely > claims copyright, all manner of warning lights come on. Was this > copy-pasted into the Apache repos from elsewhere? Is it really yours > to contribute? Has some grant been attached? > > A couple of examples to hopefully explain this better: > > The current vote going on for tests is a great example. From an IP > perspective, that code was written for hire by a contractor (Clogeny) > for Citrix, and Citrix owned the copyright. So currently the copyright > for that section of code is owned by Citrix and there needs to occur > clarification around license, whether it's being licensed or donated > to, etc. > > In another example - CLOUDSTACK-306 (and I know Sheng has survived > LKML, so he won't feel I am picking on him by using his code as an > example). This code was developed elsewhere (presumably as a work for > hire), and indeed published elsewhere first in another product, by a > third party, who has rights to the IP. While the corporate entity in > this particular case is friendly to the project, from a legal > perspective the provenance of the code is known to us, and the > licensing situation is very muddled. > > Apache projects have a reputation for good IP practices, and we, as a > project need to make sure we are living up to those expectations, and > that provenance and license is clear. > > If you have questions in this regard, please don't hesitate to ask. > > --David > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/ok4zwqtsroopqqsa >
David - Thanks for providing the context on "why". I was pretty wrapped up in the issue, and didn't fairly remind people of the reason to be concerned. -chip
