avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <lsim...@jicarilla.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Date Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:23:31 GMT
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> Some requirements and questions which I can think of off the top of my head:

thank you for the quick reply and this list of requirements. It would 
probably be beneficial if you and others could expand on them further, 
so we can come up with a detailed plan together.

> 1. The code should remain licensed under the ASL 2.0.

agreed.

> If you are planning on
> relicensing the code, then copies of the current releases would need to remain
> available from Avalon under the ASL.

we will not relicense the code. The code will remain licensed under the 
AL 2.0.

> 2. At best, branding would would be limited to Fortress, ECM and Excalibur and
> not included general use of Avalon and Apache.

agreed. We need to avoid all confusion of users, developers, and lawyers 
on this subject. The primary concern here is making sure that everyone 
understands where to get what version of which software, and we believe 
that this can only be ensured if the Fortress and ECM names are 
transferred along with the project.

> Under your proposal, the project
> would not be under the ASF umbrella and thus could not use the ASF marks. 

of course.

> However, there is the possibility of listing this project as a 'sister' project
> to Avalon, similar to the PHP Group's relationship with the ASF.

That sounds like a good idea.

> 3. Are you proposing transfering the copyright ownership?

No. We do not think that a copyright transfer is needed, nor a good idea 
to pursue. It is our understanding that the terms of the AL 2.0 do not 
require any transfer of copright in order to achieve our goals.

> 4. Do you have the infrastructure in place to support this development?  If so,
> what and where should be noted.

No, we do not have any infrastructure in place yet, but we expect all 
needed infrastructure to be in place in time long before any product 
transfer ensues. Like I wrote in response to Niclas' message, our plan 
is to ask the Codehaus to provide us with the neccessary infrastructure, 
and we have been assured that such can be arranged quickly once the 
decision is made.

> Also, be aware that we still have a few developers who never filed CLA's.  From
> the best that I can tell, this affects the old Phoenix codebase more than
> Fortress or Excalibur; however, if a copyright transfer were to take place we
> would need to ensure that the ASF has all the appropriate legal rights to do so.

Since we do not think a copyright transfer is needed or a good idea, I 
do not think this is an issue.

> While I would have rather seen development remain in Avalon, I am not opposed to
> this option.  However, I want to hear the voice of the PMC and the community on
> the matter, see a much more detailed proposal, and then I would also need to
> take the issue before the ASF board.

Of course. I think we understand each other :-D

-- 
cheers,

- Leo Simons

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog              -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue      -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
  people wouldn't obey the rules."
                                                         -- Alan Bennett


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message