incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian McCallister <>
Subject Re: [vote] mod_wombat ip clearance
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:18:13 GMT
On Feb 16, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> Hi Brian,
> On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Brian McCallister wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> -1 (NOT binding)
>>> The document still contains remnants of its TEMPLATE origin
>>> search for "TEMPLATE"
>> Deleted this section, thank you
> Does the page title still show up in the browser as "XYZ Codebase  
> Intellectual Property (IP) Clearance Status"? You didn't edit this  
> line in the patch below.

The title of the document has been changed.

>>> search for "if applicable"
>> Using the search available here ( 
>> trademarks.htm ) I found nothing which looks infringing. There are  
>> a number of wombat trademarks around, but the only one related to  
>> software is marked DEAD. The closest live one is for some folks  
>> who make keyboards.
>>> search for "Check and make sure"
>> All of these have been checked, made sure, and appropriately dated.
>>> search for "Identify name recorded for software grant: the name  
>>> of the grant as record[sic]"
>> Good catch, thank you.
> ok.
>>> search for "For individuals, use the name as recorded on the  
>>> committers page"
>> Prior to import it has only been available under the Apache  
>> License, Version 2.0. As such, everyone not in violation of that  
>> license has distribution rights.
> ok.
>>> If the incubator is to perform due diligence, there's not much on  
>>> which to perform "diligence" here.
>> Huh? There are four code grants, one from each person who has  
>> contributed code. There are four CLA's, one from each person who  
>> has contributed code. There is verification of the information I  
>> asserted in the template. There is also the two spots in the  
>> template I missed filling in which you caught -- who has  
>> distribution rights and the name of the project used in grants.txt.
> This is a question for the incubator "due diligencers". Is the  
> intent of the document to have the sections replaced as in [1] or  
> simply dated as in [2]?
> [1]
> [2] 
> contribution-classlib-ibm.html
> I believe that if the incubator folks are supposed to perform due  
> diligence given only this form, then the form needs to have the  
> information. On the other hand, if the form is simply a checklist  
> and the incubator folks just make sure that the lists are checked,  
> then just dates are fine.
> I think this is the subject of another email thread so I won't  
> recap here.

I agree that it is worthy of discussion. If you do feel strongly I  
will replace the values.

>>> I might be missing the point of the template, but I guess the  
>>> sections above are supposed to be replaced with actual names,  
>>> actions taken, file locations, references to email threads, etc.
>> I have checked in the updates to cover these points, but I have  
>> not redeployed the inubator site, For your convenience I have  
>> included the diff of the changes below.
> Modulo remarks above, fine by me.

Great, you are satisfied with the IP clearance?

While you pointed out that your vote is non-binding, I respect your  
opinion and want to resolve everything to satisfaction :-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message