incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow
Date Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:34:28 GMT

y question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests
an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is
offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the
spec committee?  If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficient to
continue to accept contributions from ASF committers who have signed a CLA
to the effect that everything they offer is covered.

Now that I understand what you are getting at - I really like the idea. 
no idea if it
is possible, but worth looking into - seems like it might work. We can 
work this with
Cliff and see what we can come up during incubator

Carl


William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>   
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>     
>>> I have a question, can anyone summarize how contributions under the ASL
>>> would be weaker or stronger than contributions under this RLA?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Legally they are most likely much the same - I think the questions you
>> ask implies something
>> which should be the question to ask....
>> -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <-
>> From precedence and from what I know it is not.
>>     
>
> Actually, no, that doesn't follow from my question.
>
> My question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests
> an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is
> offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the
> spec committee?  If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficient to
> continue to accept contributions from ASF committers who have signed a CLA
> to the effect that everything they offer is covered.
>
> This is slightly distinct from a non-committer without a CLA which is also
> contributing under the ASL, but without quite as strong a paper trail that
> they contributed knowingly under that license.
>
>   
>> As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating specifications,
>> there will be by definition some separation between code and spec processes
>>     
>
> This would generally be true even if they were both under the ASF umbrella,
> I don't necessarily think they have to be one.  E.g. even if the spec
> committee were an ASF committee, they would answer to all implementors, not
> only one implementation by the ASF...
>
>   
>> and I would like to work with the ASF to
>> try improve this. The way the group is setup I believe the ASF can have
>> a strong influence while
>> we are in incubator, and the ASF can "keep" us in incubator until the
>> spec meets ASF standards as
>> Brian said before we went to vote. Thus being in incubator seems the
>> perfect place to work this.
>>     
>
> Sure, that sounds like a good thing, although it still doesn't go to the
> questions
>
>  * project contributors must all sign two agreements?
>  * the spec committee is or isn't sufficently protected by the ASL terms?
>
>   
>> I think this is one of the options we can look at to have any member of
>> the project provide feedback to the spec working group - however it seems
>> presumptuous to use the ASL or work out details like this before we are
>> accepted in incubator.
>>     
>
> Well the ASL is the binding license of ASF work, so if that's a presumptuous
> assertion, perhaps this project belongs elsewhere?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>   


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