On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
>
> In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
> community and continue to contribute. It has to be recorded by the
> secretary and reads like legal-ese I am trying for a h
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
> are placing it under control of an existing PMC.
Which, in effect, creates a new PMC around those code bases :)
> Plus, there is
> effectively no com
OK, next draft below. Some comments first:
On 11/29/15, 6:25 AM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>Alex,
>
>Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:
>
>a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.
>
>b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal
Alex,
Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:
a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.
b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
c) is there a need to mention disbanding the original community? Could
that be framed more positively as "We would love to have you come be
On 11/28/15, 6:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>>
>>>Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all
>contributors isn't a common case, and there are both legal and
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your answer. If the
>>> answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working with
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Harbs wrote:
> Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
> License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any
> question about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that
> contributed even if they don’
Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any question
about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that contributed even
if they don’t understand licenses (not very likely) will care. I
The code was originally on Google Code and has 26 people listed there.[1]
[1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/people/list
On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> 2) AS3Commons
>
> Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the
> contributors has already b
Alex
The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is
correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be applied
or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means or what
granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it o
On 11/27/15, 10:50 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
>Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to
>incorporate the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their
>contribution being licensed as ASL.
The code is already under AL. I think we want them to give permission to
m
Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to incorporate
the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their contribution being
licensed as ASL.
A simple email confirmation should be fine.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 12:40, Alex Harui wrote:
>
> Str
Pierre,
I don't understand your comment. Could you help clarify it?
A) was this sarcasm? If so, please indicate what you are being sarcastic about
and I will respond however you like. If this was just intended as snarky, no
need to clarify
B) do you think that there is a real issue here?
C)
Hi,
> Strange, my GH view showed 12.
That includes pull requests.
> And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or something else?
a) If they are OK to have the code donated to Apache b) have they signed an
ICLA for the project and if not would they be willing to sign an Apache one.
> And how many
The key question is whether the code winds up in an apache repo. If it is
downloaded during build, no problem. If you download it and check it in as
source then we need to cross t's and dot i's a bit.
The term bundling is not terribly precise.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:28
On 11/27/15, 3:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> 1) Swiz Framework.
>
>There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which
>have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?
Strange, my GH view showed 12. And what do we ask? To sign an SGA or
s
Hi,
> 1) Swiz Framework.
There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which have
ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?
> 2) AS3Commons
Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the contributors
has already been asked, woul
Alex wrote:
>sounds like PMCs are not empowrd to make a judgement call gere.
>Here are two cases:
Can anybody do the grunt work/due diligence in obtaining
permission/authorization/whatever for ASF clearence, or is that function limted
to current/former members of the community the cde originate
On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
>> answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue
>>working
>> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but unde
I guess, that is the difference between 'The Apache Way' and anyother
way
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> > Since you are
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
> answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks"
> as Ted said, then the PMC is empowere
Hi Jim,
In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
are placing it under control of an existing PMC. Plus, there is
effectively no community left. Nobody has made a change to these projects
in 4 years. A major contributor from each project has indicated their
desi
As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN
do and what we SHOULD do.
We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically,
and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what
we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by the
I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those projects is
close to zero.
Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them.
Harbs
On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
> >There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
> >license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
> >contributors understood that they were contri
On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
>license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
>contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
OK, so I think you are saying that we can
There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 A
If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and
signed it himself. no other contributors signed the SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui wrote:
> Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
>
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-ou
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> 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,
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
one
30 matches
Mail list logo
