incubator-celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <>
Subject Re: Device Access donation
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:19:46 GMT
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:40 , Alexander Broekhuis wrote:

> I'll try to answer what I think/know..
> 2012/1/26 Pepijn Noltes <>
>> 1 Sign and send a Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA)
>> 2 Sign and send a Corporate CLA (CCLA)
> If I am correct these are only needed in the case you become a committer.

Yes. ICLA you need in any case, CCLA if your company requires it (and to be safe it's probably
a good idea when in doubt).

> As you have indicated that you want to maintain the code, I think this is a
> good idea. On [1] the process is described.

In fact, even if you don't yet want to become a committer, it's okay to get an ICLA on file.
Apache accepts them regardless if you want to be a committer. Admittedly, it makes the most
sense if you do want to become one.

> This requires some action on or
> end, we should start the formal discuss and vote if I understand it
> correctly.

Yes. Same goes for the donation, we should also start a vote once that's donated in a JIRA

> [1]:
>> 3 Get approval for device access of one of the PMCs
> I am not sure of this step.. Are binding votes needed, and if so how many?
> I think Marcel (or another mentor) can better answer this. I couldn't find
> a direct resource describing this process.

First attach it to a JIRA issue, make sure the Grant (and possibly ICLA) is arranged. Then
we can vote on it.

More info on voting in general can be found here [2]. Specific information about the donation
and IP clearance can be found here [3].


>> 4 Sign and send a Software Grant Agreement for the device access (SGA)
> This one has to be filled in and send to Apache to be able to accept the
> code.


>> My idea was to create a Jira issue and attach a patch to that, but I
>> am not sure if we need to sign a agreement before we can do that.
> As far as I can tell this is ok. Though I think it should be the sources
> as is, and not a patch. If there are any patches to the original Celix code
> I think it is better to send those as individual issues. This keeps
> licensing and IP issues obvious and separated from the current Celix
> source.

Makes sense.

> I hope this helps, and a mentor can fill in the gaps!

Did that answer all your questions?

Greetings, Marcel

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message