harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Android source: open for business
Date Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:30:26 GMT
Nathan, Jack,

We have the following text at [1].

> Always remember that you can never commit code that comes from someone else, even a co-worker.
All code from someone else must be submitted by the copyright holder (either the author or
author's employer, depending) as a JIRA, and then follow up with the required ACQs and BCC.

Any committer who obey this statement cannot technically commit any
code from Google because
* it is not in JIRA;
* we don't have required ACQ and BCC.

Well, we might think of revising the statement.

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Alexei Fedotov
<alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents
> provided by Dan.
>
> <http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
> <http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project>
>
> It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software
> distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can
> we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the
> Project Leads?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm
>> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the
>> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming
>> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined
>> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it
>> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov
>> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello folks,
>> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except
>> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex
>> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution
>> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. The
>> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form
>> > requires nothing except pure beauracy.
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches
>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev <
>> > aleksey.shipilev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan!
>> >>
>> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report back.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that
>> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip]
>> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed?
>> >>
>> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of
>> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from
>> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Aleksey.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > С уважением,
>> > Алексей Федотов,
>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> С уважением,
> Алексей Федотов,
> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
>



-- 
С уважением,
Алексей Федотов,
ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс»
Mime
View raw message