Podling commons-rdf fits that description. It started at GitHub in the
knowledge that ASF was a possible route; ALv2 from the start. (We
started at GH because there are people who would join discussions more
freely on GH.)
It so happens, the contributors are all ASF committers. With advice
On 26/03/15 16:36, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> the project. What I was looking for is a more general statement along the
> lines of what Benson has provided earlier on this thread, but coming
> from a VP of legal. This is for the purposes of documenting it for future
> projects coming to ASF.
From
IANAL, but this is what I learned when prepping code donations:
1) Every line of code is owned by some entity (a person or other legal
entity)
2) The person who owned it (may be different from the person who wrote it)
and added it to the collection of code did so under some terms.
3) If those term
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> ...what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside
> the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing
> ASF project?...
Following as much of our maturity model [1] as possible helps - in
This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the
back of my head for a while…
If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF),
but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project
(ALv2 license from day 1), wou
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
>> just for a future reference).
>
> Here:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ...For Gro
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
> just for a future reference).
Here:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
> Groovy Core Team. If
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>>> much when the codebase is alread
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has
>> zero
>> effect bu
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero
> effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant
> form
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
>
> If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
> either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then
> the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
either proprietary or available under a
Le 26/03/15 15:11, Upayavira a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>>
>> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
>> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>>
>> " Subject to the terms and conditions of t
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
There is nothing legal to cover here. Since all the code is AL 2.0,
legally, we are fine. The grant is (a) a bit of
And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
"special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
> transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache
There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all
members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to
the SGA at the time.
For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
Groovy Core Team. If we could
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>
> " Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
> hereby grants
Le 26/03/15 14:43, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
> representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
> community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
Jim said "Just do it !"...
Let's discuss about the legal aspect ther
I really have no opinion on the matter (IANAL). I'm just a virtual
paper pusher, but I did want to have a clear understanding of the
requirements so that when folks ask us on secretary@, we can guide
them to the right place or give them the right advice.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Guillaume
So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been
I think we are going a bit too far here.
Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
" Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irre
We've only seen positive messages from the community at large about the
move, all supporting and praising the decision, in various forms, whether
on our mailing-lists, or twitter, etc.
So the community is already aware of it and supports this move.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> 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 c
Would the discussion on the dev@groovy list be enough 'evidence' for
the intent of the community to move to Apache?
Then it would possible be sufficient to archive those messages for
posterity (but I'm no lawyer)
Martijn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> So ultimately
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,
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 cod
> 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?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM James Carman
wrote:
> Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
> particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
> point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
> situation" with TinkerPop. We just did w
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> My view is that
>
> -All committers need an iCLA
I think that we can agree upon and nobody is refuting that.
> -Software that comes from outside the ASF needs to come with a software grant
This is the sticking point. How many grants
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:58 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> ...It would be good to have at least some codified guidelines
> somewhere on a wiki page or something that will help newly-incubating
> projects in similar situations
My view is that
-All committers need an iCLA
-Software that come
Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
situation" with TinkerPop. We just did what we thought was best at
the time. It would be good to have
Emmanuel,
I apologize for hijacking your thread. Let me part (and create a new
thread) by saying "Welcome, Groovy!"
James
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> Bertrand,
>
> It took me a second, but I think I found some threads of interest:
>
> https://mail-search.apache.org/m
Bertrand,
It took me a second, but I think I found some threads of interest:
https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/board/201502.mbox/%3CCABD8fLVxK8jRT-Rdut9xC2RnHmQ4v9yywe4owNf=98ghdyk...@mail.gmail.com%3E
https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/operations/201501.mbox/%3
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> We need to make sure we get these guidelines nailed down, because that is
> not the advice we got when doing Tinker pop
Do you have archive links to the relevant discussions?
-Bertrand
--
We need to make sure we get these guidelines nailed down, because that is
not the advice we got when doing Tinker pop. Just seems like a very
similar situation. No one entity "owns" groovy. This is also a very likely
situation for us to encounter in the future, especially since two of the
major o
You could sign it "on behalf of the Groovy Core team"
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
> Me as the "lead" of the project?
> But I can't say I have more rights than others.
> Who has more "rights" than others? is it in terms of number of commits?
> lines contributed?
>
>
Me as the "lead" of the project?
But I can't say I have more rights than others.
Who has more "rights" than others? is it in terms of number of commits?
lines contributed?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Guillaume Laforge
>
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> Who should be signing that grant?..
Paul asked the same question in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9341 - I think that's a
question for the Groovy team, from the ASF side it's whomever "has
sufficient rights to contribu
Who should be signing that grant?
The copyright / IP is pretty much diluted, so not sure how / who should
this be dealt with?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau
> wrote:
> > ...I still have a few days full time on Groov
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> ...I still have a few days full time on Groovy, so if we can
> leverage that to start the migration of the Git repo for example it would
> be nice
As mentioned at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9341 a
software grant is nee
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau
wrote:
> ...I have a document ready that describes the questions and necessary
> steps to adapt our release process. It's an asciidoc document that I
> convert locally to HTML, I wonder what's the best way to share it
For now I guess any github
Thank you all! I still have a few days full time on Groovy, so if we can
leverage that to start the migration of the Git repo for example it would
be nice. Not sure what is required though, given we're migrating from
GitHub.
Also I have a document ready that describes the questions and necessary
s
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> For JIRA, can you import our JIRA from Codehaus?
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY
Emmanuel created INFRA-9340 for that and the main Codehaus Jira
migration ticket is INFRA-9116
-Bertrand
For JIRA, can you import our JIRA from Codehaus?
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Le 26/03/15 01:01, Konstantin Boudnik a écrit :
> > I have just helped bootstrapping two podlings in the last a couple of
> months,
> > so I will ad
Le 26/03/15 01:01, Konstantin Boudnik a écrit :
> I have just helped bootstrapping two podlings in the last a couple of months,
> so I will add JIRAs to do the what needs to be done from the INFRA side of the
> things.
Here is the Infra JIRA :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9338
As
I have just helped bootstrapping two podlings in the last a couple of months,
so I will add JIRAs to do the what needs to be done from the INFRA side of the
things.
Cos
I On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 05:02PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> ok, the vote result is out, groovy has been accepte
+1 - esp. for private@ list
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 09:57AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I usually start with mentor moderation and try to transition quickly to
> committers.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
>
> > depends, if its private@ the mods control the subscription
Le 25/03/15 22:23, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
>> ...I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears in the
>> incubator web site, I'm not lucky atm.
> I just published
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.htm
The "old" Codehaus website on groovy.codehaus.org has been misbehaving and
showing only 404.
So I redirected all the trafic to the new website groovy-lang.org.
But you if you're searching about the lists, details are here on the new
site:
http://www.groovy-lang.org/mailing-lists.html
Guillaume
O
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:26 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>... Hope you don't mind, I just fixed Roman's name
Thanks!
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:23 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
> wrote:
> > ...I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears in the
> > incubator web site, I'm not lucky atm.
>
> I just published
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/proj
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> ...I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears in the
> incubator web site, I'm not lucky atm.
I just published
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
via
https://cms.apache.org/incubator/publish?diff=1
-Be
would be good to get hold of groovy.codehaus.org. I was unable to find out
anything about using lists yesterday...
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@i
Le 25/03/15 20:00, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>>> ...Another question : who is in charge of all those tasks ?..
>> If you could create tickets like the
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8968 example that would
>> enable o
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
>> ...Another question : who is in charge of all those tasks ?..
>
> If you could create tickets like the
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-8968 example that would
> enable our infra team to get started.
Great example. Do we
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> podlings do not appear in the acreq script until they have been added to
> podlings.xml, even if they file their ICLA with initial committer as part
> of groovy.
>
> secretary@ needs to get the grant before we can import the code
That's the
Le 25/03/15 19:42, Jake Farrell a écrit :
> podlings do not appear in the acreq script until they have been added to
> podlings.xml, even if they file their ICLA with initial committer as part
> of groovy.
It has been added in podlings.xml.
I'm currently fighting to get the groovy page to appears
podlings do not appear in the acreq script until they have been added to
podlings.xml, even if they file their ICLA with initial committer as part
of groovy.
secretary@ needs to get the grant before we can import the code
-Jake
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> On Wed, Ma
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:24 PM Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Technically, I just added two moderators. We can add some more, I guess.
>
> One more thing : in order to add initial committers, the pdofling must
> be listed in https://id.apache.org/acreq/members/?. How do we add it ?
>
>
The ICLAs for
you need to setup the podling in podlings.xml at [1] and update the
incubator website
-Jake
[1]:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/podlings.xml
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> Technically, I just added two moderators. We can add some m
Technically, I just added two moderators. We can add some more, I guess.
One more thing : in order to add initial committers, the pdofling must
be listed in https://id.apache.org/acreq/members/?. How do we add it ?
-
To unsubscr
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:00 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> it's not like we are limited to having just a few moderators. Nothing
> wrong with mentors and initial committers both being on the list of
> mods...
Especially when those non-mentor moderators are experienced open
source folks like in the Gr
it's not like we are limited to having just a few moderators. Nothing
wrong with mentors and initial committers both being on the list of
mods.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I usually start with mentor moderation and try to transition quickly to
> committers.
>
>
>
> On W
+1
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Jake Farrell wrote:
>
> depends, if its private@ the mods control the subscription
>
> -Jake
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>>> On that note, interesting thing, ju
I usually start with mentor moderation and try to transition quickly to
committers.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> depends, if its private@ the mods control the subscription
>
> -Jake
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 25,
depends, if its private@ the mods control the subscription
-Jake
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On that note, interesting thing, just saw the commit go in for infra to
> > create the mailing lists. Are we
Should just be the mentors to start with and not any of the new committers
that are not familiar with processes
-Jake
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:44 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> On that note, interesting thing, just saw the commit go in for infra to
> create the mailing lists. Are we really allow
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On that note, interesting thing, just saw the commit go in for infra to
> create the mailing lists. Are we really allowing new committers to be the
> mods? It's typically the mentors (from what I've seen).
Definitely having committers serve
On that note, interesting thing, just saw the commit go in for infra to
create the mailing lists. Are we really allowing new committers to be the
mods? It's typically the mentors (from what I've seen).
John
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:34 PM Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:02
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> I most certainly am missing some steps... Feel free to add items.
>
> Another question : who is in charge of all those tasks ?
The podling's Mentors, collectively. See the Mentor Guide:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> ...- vote the 5 proposed persons as committers, once they have submitted
> their ICLA (it's already done for a few of them)..
The iCLAs are needed but no need to vote them in, we just create their
accounts - the podling acceptance v
Hi guys,
ok, the vote result is out, groovy has been accepted. I suppose the next steps
are :
- vote the 5 proposed persons as committers, once they have submitted
their ICLA (it's already done for a few of them)
- create groovy ML (dev, commits, users, private, ...)
- create the git repo
- push t
72 matches
Mail list logo
