So ultimately, what do we do? Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to sign something "on behalf of the Groovy community" or something like that? Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention as a whole?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. > If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, > there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire > to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle > that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive > intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who > ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau > <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? > > > > Nobody owns it. > > > >> If > >> I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it > >> indicates that an entity known as "The Groovy community" owns it, in > which > >> case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is "The Groovy > >> community" not a legal entity? > >> > >> The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed > to > > Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion > > larger than the language itself. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
