deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IP discussion
Date Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:09:13 GMT
Of course, I don't deal with legal matters, but would the simplest way be to have a statement
from someone representing Red Hat that code from Seam 3 and Solder is permissible to use?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 14, 2012, at 13:00, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  Deltaspike is a bit unusual as podlings go:  its code is not a
> "drop" from one single source (which would typically be accompanied by
> a software grant), nor is its code grown entirely from nothing.  Part
> of the incubation process requires the necessary precautions be taken
> to ensure that the project's IP is not encumbered in any way.  I'm not
> here to scold folks, but now that I step back and take in the
> landscape, I am not fully comfortable with our process thus far wrt
> absorbing code from the various points of ingress we all represent.
> I'll go on:
> 
>  Firstly, it's simply a fact that the CODI code is a non-issue:  it's
> been grown under the auspices of an Apache TLP and there is no reason
> to doubt that it remains as unencumbered now as ever.  I mention this
> because it's not at all like I or anyone else is of the "old boys
> club" mentality or any such nonsense; I'm just categorizing the
> DeltaSpike codebase as it now stands.  Thus far, I am concerned by the
> Solder-based code.  For example, the copyright notice at
> https://github.com/seam/solder/blob/develop/impl/src/main/java/org/jboss/solder/reflection/annotated/AnnotatedTypeBuilder.java
> (this is pretty clearly the same code as currently lives in the
> DeltaSpike repo) says "Copyright 2011, Red Hat, Inc. and/or its
> affiliates, and individual contributors by the @authors tag".  The
> @authors tag cites Stuart Douglas and Pete Muir, so I read the notice
> as saying that copyright is shared between these individuals and Red
> Hat for this particular file.  Fine; both Stuart and Pete have filed
> their ICLAs and have received their accounts (I've not checked the
> other files, but I assume they are similarly attributed).  However,
> Jason actually committed the code.  This is not necessarily wrong; Red
> Hat does have a corporate CLA on file with the ASF, and Jason is a Red
> Hat employee.  IMO then the only thing missing is an unequivocal
> statement on the parts of the Red Hat-employed DeltaSpike committers
> that any of them (or, in this case, at least Jason) is authorized to
> license whatever Solder, etc. code he sees fit, on Red Hat's behalf,
> to Apache for inclusion in the DeltaSpike codebase.  Just because Red
> Hat has filed the CCLA does not mean that every line of their code is
> now up for grabs, and I see nothing to this explicit effect in the
> incubation proposal, so that connection from point A to point B is
> essential.  We must be able to show clear provenance for any code that
> we bring in, regardless of the source, so again, please don't feel
> "singled out."  The builder code is the first example I thought of,
> and I'm pretty sure that nothing has, as yet, been added from source
> other than CODI/Solder.  Now, if the Solder code is rather to be
> contributed on the basis of the individual authors' copyrights, making
> sure everything that has already been added is kosher will require a
> little more work, but ultimately the situation is the same:  one of
> the copyright holders needs to have been responsible for licensing the
> code for ASF use, although it is fine by me if that authorization
> comes in blanket form and I'm perfectly willing to take committers at
> their word wrt to the Red Hat or any similar situation.  Finally, if
> and when we do end up with any code being officially licensed from Red
> Hat rather than from the individual authors (or if I've misinterpreted
> the spirit of the Solder copyright notice), then Red Hat would also
> need to be credited in the project's NOTICE file.
> 
> Thanks in advance for addressing my concerns (or pointing out what
> I've missed that proactively addressed them),
> Matt

Mime
View raw message