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 <gsingers@apache.org> 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
>>> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/local-lucene-solr.xml
>>> ) 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.

Craig
>
>
> -Grant
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message