incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: IP Clearance form re INCUBATOR-77
Date Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:48:32 GMT

On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> On Aug 26, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> On 8/25/08, Grant Ingersoll <> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to resolve INCUBATOR-77 and I feel stuck on the wording  
>>> in
>>> the clearance template:
>>> "Check and make sure that for all items included with the
>>>                  distribution that is not under the Apache license,
>>> we have
>>>                  the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and
>>>                  redistribute."
>>> and
>>> "Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
>>>                  project is covered by one or more of the following
>>> approved
>>>                  licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
>>> MPL 1.1, or
>>>                  something with essentially the same terms."
>> The template's a guide rather than a normative document. The licenses
>> need to be audited and checked against current Apache policy (rather
>> than the examplars given).
>>> Per the issue mentioned, there is an LGPL dependency right now  
>>> that is
>>> going to be resolved.  Thus, I am not sure what to do.  Can we fill
>>> out this and proceed w/ the checking in the code, knowing that we
>>> can't release it until this is resolved or can I truly not finish
>>> filling out the IP clearance
>>> (
>>> ) until it is resolved?  Part of me thinks, that if we commit, but  
>>> not
>>> release, that we will get some user volunteers to take up the  
>>> issue of
>>> replacing the problematic code.  My understanding of the ASF (and
>>> based on Doug C.'s comment) is that we could commit as long as we
>>> don't release, but the clearance template seems to put up a gate  
>>> that
>>> isn't neccessarily there
>> IMHO the template is wrong and conflates concerns which are better
>> separated. Separation into a guide and a simple form would be much
>> better.
> I think what you are saying, then, is that I can go forward and mark  
> that the code in question will be removed before being released?

That's what I would suggest. Note the issue in the ip clearance form,  
and check in the code. There's a flag that the code can't be released  
with the LGPL components included but that's part of the release  
process, not the entrance process.

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

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message