From general-return-32837-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Sat Dec 10 17:22:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C5C19E31 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95841 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2011 17:22:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95578 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2011 17:22:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 95568 invoked by uid 99); 10 Dec 2011 17:22:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:22:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.41] (HELO mail-ww0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:22:49 +0000 Received: by wgbdt12 with SMTP id dt12so6129467wgb.0 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:22:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Nc82xpU08vti7+Tx3tBpkWq0s9PVpFmuiUgkkR7XtbI=; b=RwZpzvvqziArOkf44kCOEXYO7Mh8/oPrCX5wkjKQVPMOY1VMQ0b33Ph/ijh86R4XJ4 3SwEk97P70tL78z2PFM/HsGbkk8H6aWVLGHEmiXYcU0NpVCw6OM8MMealr8oSOAHefWZ VCYPfaG4hJZL5E1biU6Q5AlPZxaaDh7Xu+a7k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.18.135 with SMTP id w7mr135233wid.55.1323537748937; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.104.194 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:22:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <010c01ccb46f$ebdfe430$c39fac90$@acm.org> References: <010c01ccb46f$ebdfe430$c39fac90$@acm.org> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 12:22:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound From: Greg Stein To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org, general@incubator.apache.org, Mark Struberg , Ian Wild , hwright@apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org In short: an SGA is not required, and I strongly believe it would not help with the patent position. Longer: An SGA only grants a patent license for the patents owned by the grantor for any patents that may read on the submitted code. I seriously doubt that Edgewall has any patents (a quick search says "no"). Thus, we receive no additional protection via an SGA. All that an SGA would allow us to do, that we cannot today, is to relicense the code under the ALv2. Also note that simply licensing code under the ALv2 does not provide any patent protection. A committer from company Alpha can commit some code to the project. Any patents that Alpha owns that read on *only* that code will come along with a patent license grant. But company Beta may have patents that read on it. Shoot, company Alpha may have patents that read on *other* portions of the code, to which they have not contributed. By contributing to the code base, you only provide a grant for the portions you commit, not to the entire codebase. Incorporating BSD/MIT licensed code directly into our products has been a standard practice. The Apache HTTPD Server has included the PCRE and Expat code for well over a *decade* now. There are three types of code that will go into the final Apache Bloodhound release: 1) the original stuff from Edgewall 2) the pre-packaged popular plugins from third-parties 3) original code committed here at the ASF The code under (1) will have its original BSD license. The code from (2) will have its license, or it may be ALv2 if we get SGAs from those developers. And, of course, all code under (3) will be under ALv2. The package/release as a whole will be under the ALv2. Looking at individual files, you'll see that file's specific license (since the header must remain unless/until the original copyright holder decides to remove it). An SGA to cover the parts under (1) would be nice, but is certainly not required for us to be able to deliver an Apache Bloodhound release. Cheers, -g On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 18:36, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum.wright@wandisco.com] > < > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3= cCAJjMeYMb0+uCrbuaX83b1NSbhq8G3SfzafXUkfrKjxi=3DubQzQA@mail.gmail.com%3e> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:06 > To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org > Cc: Mark Struberg; Ian Wild; Greg Stein; hwright@apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: >> Uh, here's the TRAC License: = . >> >> You have to do what it says. =A0The language is very simple. =A0So is th= e >> Copyright notice. >> >> If this is the codebase that you propose to be the foundation of Bloodho= und >> development, I suspect that an SGA (Software Grant Agreement) from Edgew= all >> Software is preferred in order to have it be licensable by Apache under = the >> ALv2. =A0If an SGA is possible, it would deal with the patent issue that= has >> been raised on this thread. =A0See . > > "preferred" or "required"? > > > =A0 I said preferred because I don't know where the line is. > =A0 A substantial body of work is being brought over and it > =A0 seems to me that it should be required, but I'm not the > =A0 authority. =A0However, to the extent that this draft is > =A0 authoritative, I would use it for guidance: > =A0 = . > > > I'll also note that small bits of the Trac test suite are already > being distributed in ASF releases of Subversion and hosted in our > public repo. =A0See: > =A0http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/NOTICE > and > =A0http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/s= wig/python/tests/trac/test.py > > Subversion still maintains the required attribution per the Trac > License, but also adds the ALv2. =A0This was a point of discussion > during the Subversion incubation, but was vetted and approved and has > been the status quo for over 2 years. > > > =A0 I have no reason to believe that the SVN usage is a precedent for > =A0 the Bloodhound situation, nor vice versa. =A0I'm not touching that. > > >> I have no idea how much the SGA is a requirement for the incubator propo= sal >> moving forward. =A0Your champion or proposed mentors should know. =A0I r= ecommend >> that be figured out ASAP. =A0How that will be handled might need to be a= dded >> to the incubator proposal, also. > > What specific questions would you like to see addressed in the proposal? > > > =A0I think the need for an SGA from Edgewall should be identified > =A0as a key requirement in being able to have a successful IP > =A0Clearance. =A0This is not a small amount of BSD code, it is the > =A0foundation for the Bloodhound project. > =A0 =A0 It would also be good to indicate in the proposal whether the > =A0copyright holders have expressed any willingness to provide such > =A0an agreement. =A0This strikes me as a material issue for incubation. > > >> =A0- Dennis >> >> If you end up needing a plan B, it might be appropriate to move where >> further development under the BSD license is possible. =A0SourceForge mi= ght be >> an useful choice. =A0SourceForge offers Trac as an available feature for >> projects, and it also supports SVN as one of its repository services. = =A0(I >> only mention that because I was looking into the SourceForge 2.0 beta >> recently and I have some small projects there.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org] > < > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3= cCADmm+KcJGtTeOtH9wz-kfMKGkFgvtEmT9RwkgoNU0aZ+V2SMMg@mail.gmail.com%3e> >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 18:38 >> To: general@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: Mark Struberg; Ian Wild; Greg Stein >> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound >> >> I suggest legal-discuss@ is involved to answer it. Although it is Cat >> A license, I don't think it is fully kosher, as we promise that the >> original contributor hasn't submarined any patents, but BSD doesn't >> state this. Maybe it is a tiny point, but more eyes from >> legal-discuss@ won't hurt... > > It would surprise me if this question isn't already answered. =A0In fact,= it is: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > > I humbly submit that reopening the question with legal-discuss@ would > be disrespectful of their time. > > > =A0 I agree. =A0There is enough information to do the right thing. > =A0 Be careful though. =A0Being a dependency to an Apache product > =A0 does not alleviate requirements for IP clearance. > =A0 =A0 =A0Inclusion within an Apache project does not mean that the > =A0 Apache project notice can be substituted without appropriate > =A0 SGAs or iCLAs. =A0It seems to me that the IP Clearance guidelines > =A0 are clearly applicable to the Trac/Bloodhound case. > =A0 =A0 =A0This policy provides useful concrete guidance: > =A0 . > > > > -Hyrum > > [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org