Yes, an ICLA on file should suffice. John
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > we have an ICLA for Jessica now. > > However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be > required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating > the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient. > Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times over the > years and only used the project level in Schedule B. > > Personally (IANAL), I think we should be good as the size of the > donation isn't that big, Intel claims the copyright and has clearly > green lighted Jessica to contribute in their name to Felix (and we > have an ICLA as well) - hence: > > Are you willing to withdraw your veto based on the ICLA and the given CCLA? > > Otherwise, I guess I'll go and ask legal to see if they can clear this up. > > regards, > > Karl > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > John, > > > > yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so > > basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the > > provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica > > Marz). > > > > I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an > > SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica. > > > > Thank you for looking into this! > > > > regards, > > > > Karl > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Karl, > >> > >> I just read the CCLA that was filed. I do not believe it is clear > enough > >> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be > >> included. Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf > >> > >> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect: > >> > >> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR > >> - A list of files > >> > >> As well as: > >> > >> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s). > >> > >> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items > >> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz. > >> > >> John > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> John, > >>> > >>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either > >>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software > >>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then? > >>> > >>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know > >>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can > >>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks! > >>> > >>> regards, > >>> > >>> Karl > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Karl, > >>> > > >>> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ > secretary@ > >>> or > >>> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to > remove > >>> the > >>> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE > file for > >>> > Apache Felix going forward). This is typically done as an SGA [1]. > >>> > > >>> > John > >>> > > >>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Hi John, > >>> >> > >>> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already > >>> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an > >>> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need > the > >>> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form): > >>> >> > >>> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either > >>> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software > >>> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to > >>> >> secret...@apache.org" > >>> >> > >>> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to > >>> >> cover for that. > >>> >> > >>> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help > me > >>> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to > >>> >> get this done? > >>> >> > >>> >> regards, > >>> >> > >>> >> Karl > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament < > johndam...@apache.org> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > Karl, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity > has > >>> >> given > >>> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache > >>> under > >>> >> > ICLAs. It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense > code > >>> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a > >>> >> > significant amount of code. In those scenarios, there's an SGA > >>> >> associated > >>> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that > they > >>> are > >>> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license > >>> (irrespective > >>> >> of > >>> >> > the original license). I'm assuming that at Intel some # of > engineers > >>> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary > license > >>> >> until > >>> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed. In that case, SGA is almost always > the > >>> right > >>> >> > document to get signed. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA > >>> involved > >>> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be > >>> >> applied > >>> >> > as a patch/pull request. The other clear thing this indicates is > a > >>> loss > >>> >> of > >>> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) > we're > >>> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing > >>> repository. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> >> Hi John, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been > >>> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is > >>> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering > >>> Jessica > >>> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help? > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> regards, > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Karl > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament < > >>> johndam...@apache.org> > >>> >> >> wrote: > >>> >> >> > Hello, > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if > >>> >> ICLAs/SGA > >>> >> >> > were received as well? The document indicates a CCLA was > received > >>> >> from > >>> >> >> an > >>> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right. > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > John > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls < > karlpa...@gmail.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> Hi, > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the > >>> Bundle > >>> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0]. > >>> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1]. > >>> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining > list > >>> [2]. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast > >>> within > >>> >> >> >> the next 72 hours. > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> regards, > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Karl > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732 > >>> >> >> >> [1] > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html > >>> >> >> >> [2] > >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@felix.apache.org/msg44409.html > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> -- > >>> >> >> >> Karl Pauls > >>> >> >> >> karlpa...@gmail.com > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: > >>> general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> -- > >>> >> >> Karl Pauls > >>> >> >> karlpa...@gmail.com > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: > general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Karl Pauls > >>> >> karlpa...@gmail.com > >>> >> > >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Karl Pauls > >>> karlpa...@gmail.com > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > Karl Pauls > > karlpa...@gmail.com > > > > -- > Karl Pauls > karlpa...@gmail.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
