I think it is common to take a quick look at code coming in. In particular, a glance to see whether there is any hygiene around licensing is an important question. Many projects in the world at large have no good record of who write the code but still imagine that they can change the licensing. Such projects are not suitable for Apache incubation since without a clean rewrite, they are not possible to Apache license.
Commercially developed code rarely has that sort of problem, but there may be other problems that a quick perusal would turn up or eliminate. At the very least, it seems reasonable to put a link to the content of the evaluation license in the proposal. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > Ross, > > do we evaluate source code at the incubation-entry level, or do we evaluate > proposed development goals and development community propositions? I'm > curious about your thoughts. > > Yours, > > Bill > On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" < > ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > Pivotal are asking me to agree to an "evaluation license" which I cannot > > view before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first. > > > > Pivotal's privacy policy goes a *long* way beyond the point I am > > comfortable with when getting open source software (or deciding whether I > > want to agree with an evaluation license I can't read). I guess your > > defense could be that it's not open source yet, that's fine, but you are > > asking me, as an IPMC Member, to make a judgement on the validity of the > > proposal but I can't evaluate the code since I can't access it or the > > license under which I am allowed to view it. > > > > Most importantly, the "export and license obligations" you mention are > > something that have to go away before we can accept the project (or more > > accurately before it can graduate). Since I can't evaluate the code or > the > > license I have no way of evaluating whether this is possible. There is no > > mention of such an item under "known risks" or the "crypotography" > section > > of the proposal so what's this "export" stuff about (assuming the license > > thing is the evaluation license)? > > > > Given the points above I do not see how I can evaluate this proposal in > > its current form. > > > > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > > Roman Shaposhnik > > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 11:56 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal > > > > Since I'm getting a few off-list questions, I just want to make one point > > clear: > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > > wrote: > > >> I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the > > >> proposal without having to sign up to "the Pivotal network" - how can > > I do that? > > > > > > The issue here is export and license compliance. Unfortunately, > > > singing up is the only way to go right now. Why is it problematic for > > you? > > > > The software currently is NOT under ALv2. It is available under the > > evaluation license. The whole point of the proposal is to make it > available > > under ALv2 as an Incubating project. > > > > Our apologies for making folks click through the evaluation license. > > > > Thanks, > > Roman. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > > >
