On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why >> clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes >> here.* My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception >> of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude >> "code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our >> public mailing lists" to quote from >> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html . Am I on the >> right track here? > > Point them to clause 5. But perhaps a phone call is in order? I am > likely in the same timezone as the RH counsel, in fact, I may even be > in the same city. >
I am told he is in EST. I am in CST (no idea whether my participation would actually be beneficial, but so far I've been the primary point of contact between the incubator and Red Hat counsel on this). I will refer them to clause 5, make my usual halting attempt to explain what I think you're saying it's saying, and tell them you are willing to have the call if it would be helpful. Thanks, Sam! Matt >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> * for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be >> cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software >> grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim >> each commit as clause 7 would do. > > - Sam Ruby > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are >>>> talking about the same. >>>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to >>>> handle it via a software grant. >>>> >>>> @matt: >>>> it would be great if you can contact them again. >>> >>> Done, copying deltaspike-private. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>>> >>>> @sam: >>>> thx for your help >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org> >>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> in general - fyi: >>>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on >>>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors >>>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the >>>>> discussion and the release votes. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> gerhard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com >>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on >>>>>> file >>>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute >>>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF. >>>>>> A >>>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the >>>>>> > ASF >>>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the >>>>>> company >>>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is >>>>>> being >>>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving >>>>>> the >>>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company >>>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software >>>>>> > under >>>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit >>>>>> > permission >>>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software >>>>>> grant >>>>>> > is typically the best way to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I concur. >>>>>> >>>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant >>>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software >>>>>> Grant would be appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations >>>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a >>>>>> problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Sam Ruby >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
