I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the satisfaction of the contributor. We don't try to second-guess the intent of the grantor. We assume that their own counsel have reviewed the grant.
Some licensors are very specific about their contributions, listing urls and timestamps; or specific file names. Others are less precise, simply naming the package that they are licensing to us. If the grant is general, this indicates that the licensor is granting pretty much everything associated with the project. In most cases, this is what is intended when "moving a project" to Apache. If the grant is specific, this indicates that the licensor is choosing not to grant everything, but only those parts explicitly named. In this case, the receiving project needs to be more diligent about only taking those pieces that are named in the grant. Craig > On Feb 13, 2018, at 3:50 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >> >> Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
