Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

[Benedict]

Are we certain about that? It’s unclear to me from the published guidance; would be nice to get legal to weigh in to confirm to make sure we aren’t skipping any steps, as we haven’t been involved until now so haven’t the visibility. At the very least it reads to me that anyone expected to be maintaining the software going forwards should have a CLA on file with ASF, but I’d have expected the ASF to also want a record of the historic CLAs. On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:28, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote:  On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 17:50, Jeremiah Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: I think this is covered by the grant agreement? https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf 2. Licensor represents that, to Licensor's knowledge, Licensor is legally entitled to grant the above license. Licensor agrees to notify the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which Licensor becomes aware and which makes or would make Licensor's representations in this License Agreement inaccurate in any respect. On Oct 5, 2023 at 4:35:08 AM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS, AFAICT. Of course it shouldn’t be shared publicly but not sure how PMC can fulfil its verification function here without it Correct, thanks JD. These are CLAs that were submitted to DS, not to ASF. It is DS's legal responsibility to ensure what they are donating they have the right to (i.e. have the copyright), when submitting the SGA.  It's not on the ASF or the PMC to verify this.  Here we're simply demonstrating that we (DS) have done that due diligence, and are keeping record of it.