incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <>
Subject Re: IP Clearance
Date Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:26:19 GMT
Ok I'm sorry I misunderstood.  If needed I would think that we can get icla's from the nic
people. As far as gbarton, he sent a pull request via github and commented about it on the
issue in jira.  That's the only record of intent to contribute the code.


Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 31, 2012, at 7:55 PM, Tim Williams <> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Aaron McCurry <> wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I want this completed so we can move on.  So the
>> question is do I need to get iCLA's from everyone that has ever
>> committed / contributed code to blur?  When if they are not committers
>> in the Apache project?  Let me know what you want me to do.
> To be clear, my question isn't holding *anything* up - it's just a
> question.  We can proceed as usual - incubation is about sorting out
> these issues and frankly, I'm just not sure exactly how this one
> should be handled.
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Aaron McCurry <> wrote:
>>> dbarton == gbarton
>>> He's the only non-NIC employee, I will reach out to the others.  I
>>> kinda understand why we would need iCLA's from the people that have
>>> committed, but technically gbarton has not committed.  I committed his
>>> patch, git can have a different committer from author.  I'm ok with
>>> getting an iCLA from these people if it's necessary, but they
>>> committed code to Blur before it was Apache.  I have excepted
>>> gbarton's code after it was Apache, but he doesn't have committer
>>> status on the github project.  If we need him to fill out a iCLA, I
>>> feel like he should be made a committer or is the iClA needed if you
>>> contribute as well?  The reason I ask is because my code has been
>>> excepted into other Apache projects without iCLA on record.
> Since Blur was ALv2 before bringing it here maybe section 5 of the
> license is enough.  I don't know, I'm hoping another mentor will help
> out here.  Personally, I think it'd be good to get some
> acknowledgement that they intended to contribute it.
> Your previous patches have been accepted by other projects likely
> because of the "checkbox" that indicated your intent to contribute
> them.  That checkbox was wildly misunderstood, likely unnecessary
> [because of Section 5 I mention above] and recently removed.  In any
> case, this shouldn't slow things down at all, just a question...
> Thanks,
> --tim

View raw message