Fair enough. We have a track record for some of the submitted code
[1]. The rest of it was sent to me directly (that was in the times
before Jira). I'll try to ping others one more time, and if this
fails, we'll just rewrite the remaining files. The "trivial" also
means that they are trivial to rewrite :-) ... although the ones
that were just following the template will look almost exactly like
the originals...
[1] http://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-33
Andrus
On Aug 2, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Cayenne has obtained ICLAs for all committers, including retired
committers. They have also obtained ICLAs for any who submitted
patches
-- with the exception of 4 patch submitters whose contributions were
minor, trivial, reworked or broken [1] ([1] is also included down
below). 6 files/classes are involved and an example of "trivial"
is at
http://tinyurl.com/o9vpk [2].
Is this sufficient? Or does something more need to be done?
A new file is not a trivial addition, even if it is simply filling
in a template. A change only qualifies as trivial if it is a simple
fix to an existing file (i.e., what the lawyers would call a "repair"
as opposed to a new expression). I would just delete the one example
of a trivial new file, especially if it doesn't work anyway. Also,
"reworked" doesn't change the IP -- it just adds to it.
It matters more how the IP arrived into the project. If the patches
were all published by the original authors to a public list or
bugzilla
with the stated intention of being included in an open source product
under non-copyleft terms, then that should be sufficient for the ASF.
We just need to record the point of origin.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
