Mailing-List: contact bloodhound-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGMZAuM6ZxgyPLKxYT0xdmhCU8i9D0awXKiey6TbdZtWSktwEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50102A61.6090908@wandisco.com>
	<CABD8fLXnGyrrBv4vghHkvcE+-2G668kDWn6YnDg0Z0esgSPd0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMmgw9mLZ04cvPK1cQ_t9CE9U1+vpdrqBaNWu-2AuUR+on8NCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMZAuO_YUX1YYMchraHMZuiiNWhbOHhmwOVJwBmV7VDGVeM0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMmgw9mxH3xMAsz5ZZvgDmsPwGFjuRDvAC4AOQQwtQvPgToFAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGMZAuM6ZxgyPLKxYT0xdmhCU8i9D0awXKiey6TbdZtWSktwEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:41:44 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLUhFsm5wj0+yeyKOst5e11gV9VBsqUJ2tUj5xkMgcQ=XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.1.0 (incubating) (RC1)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a7038a286c04c7341a50

--e89a8f83a7038a286c04c7341a50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Aug 13, 2012 9:06 PM, "Olemis Lang" <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi !
>
> On 8/13/12, Ethan Jucovy <ethan.jucovy@gmail.com> wrote:
>....
> > But also note that excanvas.js is distributed under the Apache license;
it
> > doesn't say "Licened to the Apache Software Foundation" (AFAIK) - see
> > below.

Certainly. The statements mean entirely different things, and each is
correct. Not a problem.

>...
> > I was not very clear in my original message though.  The "Licensed to
the
> > Apache Software Foundation under one or more contributor license
> > agreements" header is not itself an Apache license.

It isn't meant to be. It is telling you the status of the file, and where
to find the license.

So. What is your point?

>...
> > I'm not sure what it
> > actually means

Then why are you presupposing a problem exists? Why are you sending this
email?

If you wish to learn, then go do some reading rather than distracting the
community. Ask on license-discuss@apache.org for pointers. SOMETHING
besides uninformed hypotheses.

> > but I my understanding is that it indicates, as well as an
> > Apache license, a copyright assignment to ASF (presumably necessary
because
> > it is original code in ASF's subversion repository)

I wish you would actually learn about the ASF's licensing practices, rather
than waste Olemis' and my time.

No copyright assignment to the ASF has ever occurred. We don't accept them.

>...
> > which would have to(?)
> > be revoked in case of upstream contribution.

No. I told you this is my initial reply.

>...
> > This, again, seems like a lot
> > of artificial barriers to integration.

No. No such barrier exists.

Learn and ask, before making such stipulations.

>...
> > But other messages in this thread
> > seem to say that this will not be a problem and/or will be moot in the
case
> > of these specific files.

Exactly. So what is your problem? Move on to substantive issues.

>...
> > That said, this set of complications was one of the factors in the
original
> > decision(?) by Bloodhound's developers to work on Trac core
modifications
> > outside the ASF SVN (e.g. Github) and [therefore be able] to keep all
> > modifications BSD-licensed; hence my asking why the developers changed
> > their mind, and questioning whether the added convenience should really
> > outweigh the ensuing headaches.

It has been done. I agree with their choice. Where the core patches are
made is irrelevant. They *will* be made. May as well group them in the same
place.

>...
> Q - Is there any part licensed under ALv2 a candidate
>      to be committed upstream ?
> A - *NO*

Well... maybe some of it may be offered/accepted, but should the upstream
devs ask for a license change (that is not a given!), then it can be one.
No problems, and no impediment.

>...
> > My "-1" referred to the licensing and code
> > location aspects, and to the fact that these questions had not yet been
> > raised and discussed, and no more.

The licensing aspects are fine, as I covered in my email. You need to learn
more about IP at the ASF before you question the approach. I did a review
of the tarball. I will perform more reviews in the future. If you have
information or belief that that is insufficient, then I welcome your
concerns.

> ... I don't see why that's necessary to release o.1.0-rc1 . I do see
> these subjects might be addressed before graduating the project from
> Incubation process

All licensing issues MUST be addressed before graduation. There is no
"might be".

Cheers,
-g

--e89a8f83a7038a286c04c7341a50--