commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Rossi <>
Subject Re: [math] elementary functions.
Date Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:07:38 GMT


I'm OK with providing an ICLA or SGA or both.  A bit of history on the 
project to help you decide what is appropriate:

While working for my employer some last year we noticed some of these 
functions were slow.  I quickly wrote a couple of faster replacements.

Seperately I decided to take the idea and see how far I could push it.  On 
my own time I developed an new implementaion that had all the 
characteristics I described earlier.

Although it seemed unlikely that my employer would try claim ownership of 
software that I didn't write for them, I have asked for and  obtained a 
written declaration from them saying they have no claim on it.

It was an interesting project and I'm just tring to solve this problem so 
others won't have to deal with it again.   I'm happy to help maintain it, 
but I do have a limited amount of time available for that.

As for the size of the project, the software itself is 2690 lines.  The 
test cases and tools used to create the software add an additional 2430 
lines.  The project was started in Oct 2009, so not quite a year yet.

I also previously tried to interest the people at the jQuantLib project 
(, but they don't seem very interested.


On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Luc Maisonobe wrote:

> Le 08/06/2010 21:16, James Carman a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Luc Maisonobe <> wrote:
>>> I would say it depends both on the size of the contribution and the fact
>>> it is completely new or a patch on existing code. The examples I know of
>>> are the mantissa library I contributed in 2006, the simplex solver Ben
>>> contributed last year and the microsphere interpolation Gilles
>>> contributed last year too. In these 3 cases, the size was of the order
>>> of magnitude of 100s or 1000s of lines and it was for new features. We
>>> asked for a software grant in all cases.
>> We asked for the grant because it was required or just as a precaution?
> It was required for at least the two first cases. Concerning Mantissa,
> it was an existing product I wrote and published under the terms of the
> modified BSD license, so it was a large set of code and there was a
> license change. Concerning the simplex solver, it was developed by Ben
> inside Google so we needed some signed form by a Google exec. I asked on
> the legal list for this case and they considered the software grant was
> really needed.
> Considering microsphere, I checked further: we didn't ask for a software
> Grant but rather for an ICLA from Gilles, because he developed it
> explicitely for inclusion in commons-math.
> I think formally a Software Grant would be needed for all things
> imported from outside without having been developed explicitely for the
> foundation. The page on the foundation site reads:
>  When an individual or corporation decides to donate a body of
>  existing software or documentation to one of the Apache projects,
>  they need to execute a formal Software Grant Agreement (SGA) with the
>  ASF. Typically, this is done after negotiating approval with the ASF
>  Incubator or one of the PMCs, since the ASF will not accept software
>  unless there is a viable community available to support a
>  collaborative project.
> As I understand Bill's first message about FastMath, he developed it
> over one year and wants to contribute it afterwards, so we need a
> Software Grant. Of course it would be even better if at the same time he
> would provide an ICLA to be able to maintain it as part of Apache
> commons-math.
> Luc
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message