Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu. I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even ones under AL, had to come in with an SGA signed by ALL of the original copyright holders.
Specifically, there are two code bases under AL where the major contributors have indicated that they would like our project to take over change-control. These donations have been held up by trying to chase down all of the folks who made smaller contributions and getting them to sign an SGA. There really isn't any community around these code bases right now, but our project is interested in them because under ASF practices, they can at least get occasional attention without the major contributors having to be involved. Is an SGA needed? If not, is there a recommended practice for providing notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the change-control for code base is moving to the ASF? Thanks, -Alex On 11/24/15, 8:01 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <omal...@apache.org> wrote: >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" >> > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >> > >> > >Alex, >> > > >> > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that >> > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of >> > >the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If >> > >it’s not the case, we go by the license of the project which >>stipulates >> > >how code can be copied, modified, reused, etc. >> > >> > Yes, but my interpretation of your words is that folks have to opt >>out, >> > >> >> Correct: opt-out. >> >> Since this code is under ALv2, we can import it to the ASF under that >> license. We have always done stuff like this, including other permissive >> licenses. >> >> But this isn't simply importing a library, this is saying "the ASF is >>now >> the primary locus of development for >this< code." And that's where >>people >> can say, "woah. I hate you guys. don't develop my code there", and so we >> nuke it. >> >> SGA/iCLA is to give us rights that we otherwise wouldn't have (ie. the >>code >> was under a different license). >> > >It is worth looking back at the thread on Bloodhound ><http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_m >box%2Fincubator-general%2F201201.mbox%2F%253C0F2EA54E-4419-428F-A604-46EF5 >9C40469%2540gbiv.com%253E&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG4tmh9dY86HFVyRZlTE66tCjvh >Kg> >. > >The important thing is that Apache doesn't fork communities. In this case, >the community wants to move to Apache. That is great and should be >allowed. >They shouldn't need to get an explicit permission from each contributor >over the years. > >.. Owen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
