commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com>
Subject Re: [LANG] Towards 3.3
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:14:52 GMT
On 31 January 2014 04:37, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read section 5 of the license.

Ok, that's pretty clear-cut then. To save others from dragging up the wording:

"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state
otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in
the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and
conditions of this License, without any additional terms or
conditions."

So I'd say any patch to existing source would be covered by that. The
term Contribution is defined higher in the license and includes
submission to the issue tracking system.

Obtaining an ICLA should still be a goal, I think, but it shouldn't
prevent us from adding useful patches to the project.

Duncan



>  On Jan 30, 2014 10:16 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" <britter@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure whether providing a patch for an AL licensed file is
>> automatically licensed under AL as well. In the end the raw diff file does
>> not contain the AL header, so you're better of with an ICLA.
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>>
>> 2014/1/27 Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Depends whose arguing probably :)
>> >
>> > Our license gives us a right to contributions under Apache 2.0 unless
>> > stated otherwise; the ICLA is playing safer. We can also simply take
>> > anything under a compatible license and include (with suitable
>> licensing).
>> > I did that for a method from Spring.
>> >
>> > Hen
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Duncan Jones <duncan@wortharead.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 26 January 2014 19:47, Duncan Jones <duncan@wortharead.com> wrote:
>> > > > On 26 January 2014 18:49, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> Hi Duncan,
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2014/1/26 Duncan Jones <duncan@wortharead.com>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> On 26 January 2014 13:33, Benedikt Ritter <britter@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>> > Hi all,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > we've fixed some bugs and we have some nice new features
>> > implemented
>> > > >>> > (DiffBuilder, Jaro-Winkler Distance, RandomUtils,
>> ClassPathUtils),
>> > > so I'm
>> > > >>> > planning to cut a RC in the first week of February.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I just wanted to know if there is anything you'd like
to have
>> > > included in
>> > > >>> > the next release. Then please tag it with fix version
3.3.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > Regards,
>> > > >>> > Benedikt
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I'm debating whether LANG-341 might be a candidate for inclusion.
>> The
>> > > >>> patch is fairly complete, just needs Javadocs and a couple
of
>> > > >>> additional unit tests, which I can sort over the coming week.
What
>> do
>> > > >>> you guys think? It seems like a useful addition to me.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Yes looks neat. The problem I'm seeing is, that the last activity
is
>> > > from
>> > > >> Nov 2011, and the contributor has no ICLA listed (see [1]), so
IP is
>> > not
>> > > >> absolutely clear. I'm unsure if we can use this contribution without
>> > the
>> > > >> ICLA. Anyway, Hen has contributed the patch Vincent Ricard used,
so
>> we
>> > > can
>> > > >> use Hen's patch and improve it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Benedikt
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > > Good point. I think in this case I'll ping the contributor to get
>> > > > their thoughts on an ICLA and assume this will miss v3.3. He's done
a
>> > > > lot of work to extend Hen's patch and it would be a shame for that
>> not
>> > > > to get committed if he's interested. If there's no reply (or no
>> > > > interest), I'll sort something for v3.4.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Having said that... does this still represent a problem if the
>> > > contributor has patched existing code (containing the Apache license)?
>> > >
>> > > Are there any situations where we can take a patch and apply it to
>> > > trunk without the contributor having an ICLA? I certainly had patches
>> > > applied in the past without an ICLA, but perhaps things were more lax
>> > > then?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Duncan
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>> > > >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>> > > >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>> > > >> http://github.com/britter
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
>> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
>> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
>> http://github.com/britter
>>

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


Mime
View raw message