Carl Trieloff wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> >> I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL >> would be weaker or stronger than contributions under this RLA? >> > Legally they are most likely much the same - I think the questions you > ask implies something > which should be the question to ask.... > -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <- > From precedence and from what I know it is not.
Actually, no, that doesn't follow from my question. My question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the spec committee? If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficient to continue to accept contributions from ASF committers who have signed a CLA to the effect that everything they offer is covered. This is slightly distinct from a non-committer without a CLA which is also contributing under the ASL, but without quite as strong a paper trail that they contributed knowingly under that license. > As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating specifications, > there will be by definition some separation between code and spec processes This would generally be true even if they were both under the ASF umbrella, I don't necessarily think they have to be one. E.g. even if the spec committee were an ASF committee, they would answer to all implementors, not only one implementation by the ASF... > and I would like to work with the ASF to > try improve this. The way the group is setup I believe the ASF can have > a strong influence while > we are in incubator, and the ASF can "keep" us in incubator until the > spec meets ASF standards as > Brian said before we went to vote. Thus being in incubator seems the > perfect place to work this. Sure, that sounds like a good thing, although it still doesn't go to the questions * project contributors must all sign two agreements? * the spec committee is or isn't sufficently protected by the ASL terms? > I think this is one of the options we can look at to have any member of > the project provide feedback to the spec working group - however it seems > presumptuous to use the ASL or work out details like this before we are > accepted in incubator. Well the ASL is the binding license of ASF work, so if that's a presumptuous assertion, perhaps this project belongs elsewhere? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
