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 23:27:57 GMT
Nathan,
I agree with you that committers should be treated as sapient beings
who may take decisions about the code they commit. The story on
java.util.concurrent is a good example indeed. If my memory served me
well we finally committed it into our repository, didn't we?

Thanks.



On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Nathan Beyer <ndbeyer@apache.org> wrote:
> That might be over-simplifying the issue. We've taken the concurrency
> code without a submission - the code was asserted to be public domain.
> What we're discussing isn't public domain, but, in theory, is a
> compatible license.
>
> I believe the intent of the wiki article is to get new committers to
> think about what they're doing, which seems to be working.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Alexei Fedotov
> <alexei.fedotov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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»
>>
>



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