Hi Brian,
While you pointed out that your vote is non-binding, I respect your opinion and want to resolve everything to satisfaction :-)
+1 for the IP clearance for wombat.I do think that the IP clearance form could be clearer about how it is intended to be used, but that's not your issue today!
Craig On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:18 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:
On Feb 16, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:Hi Brian, On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:On Feb 15, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:-1 (NOT binding) The document still contains remnants of its TEMPLATE origin search for "TEMPLATE"Deleted this section, thank youDoes the page title still show up in the browser as "XYZ Codebase Intellectual Property (IP) Clearance Status"? You didn't edit this line in the patch below.The title of the document has been changed.search for "if applicable"Using the search available here ( http://www.uspto.gov/main/ trademarks.htm ) I found nothing which looks infringing. There are a number of wombat trademarks around, but the only one related to software is marked DEAD. The closest live one is for some folks who make keyboards.search for "Check and make sure"All of these have been checked, made sure, and appropriately dated.search for "Identify name recorded for software grant: the name of the grant as record[sic]"Good catch, thank you.ok.search for "For individuals, use the name as recorded on the committers page"Prior to import it has only been available under the Apache License, Version 2.0. As such, everyone not in violation of that license has distribution rights.ok.If the incubator is to perform due diligence, there's not much on which to perform "diligence" here.Huh? There are four code grants, one from each person who has contributed code. There are four CLA's, one from each person who has contributed code. There is verification of the information I asserted in the template. There is also the two spots in the template I missed filling in which you caught -- who has distribution rights and the name of the project used in grants.txt.This is a question for the incubator "due diligencers". Is the intent of the document to have the sections replaced as in [1] or simply dated as in [2]?[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/geronimo-iiop.html[2] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/harmony-14- contribution-classlib-ibm.htmlI believe that if the incubator folks are supposed to perform due diligence given only this form, then the form needs to have the information. On the other hand, if the form is simply a checklist and the incubator folks just make sure that the lists are checked, then just dates are fine.I think this is the subject of another email thread so I won't recap here.I agree that it is worthy of discussion. If you do feel strongly I will replace the values.I might be missing the point of the template, but I guess the sections above are supposed to be replaced with actual names, actions taken, file locations, references to email threads, etc.I have checked in the updates to cover these points, but I have not redeployed the inubator site, For your convenience I have included the diff of the changes below.Modulo remarks above, fine by me.Great, you are satisfied with the IP clearance?While you pointed out that your vote is non-binding, I respect your opinion and want to resolve everything to satisfaction :-)-Brian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
