incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:00:46 GMT
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why
>> clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes
>> here.*  My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception
>> of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude
>> "code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
>> public mailing lists" to quote from
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html .  Am I on the
>> right track here?
>
> Point them to clause 5.  But perhaps a phone call is in order?  I am
> likely in the same timezone as the RH counsel, in fact, I may even be
> in the same city.
>

I am told he is in EST.  I am in CST (no idea whether my participation
would actually be beneficial, but so far I've been the primary point
of contact between the incubator and Red Hat counsel on this).  I will
refer them to clause 5, make my usual halting attempt to explain what
I think you're saying it's saying, and tell them you are willing to
have the call if it would be helpful.

Thanks, Sam!

Matt

>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>> * for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be
>> cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software
>> grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim
>> each commit as clause 7 would do.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gpetracek@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
>>>> talking about the same.
>>>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
>>>> handle it via a software grant.
>>>>
>>>> @matt:
>>>> it would be great if you can contact them again.
>>>
>>> Done, copying deltaspike-private.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @sam:
>>>> thx for your help
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gpetracek@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in general - fyi:
>>>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree
on
>>>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>>>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>>>>> discussion and the release votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>>>>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have
a CCLA on
>>>>>> file
>>>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to
contribute
>>>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed
to the ASF.
>>>>>>  A
>>>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant
the ASF
>>>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company.
If the
>>>>>> company
>>>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software
is
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company
is giving
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the
company
>>>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software
under
>>>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit
permission
>>>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>>>>> grant
>>>>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I concur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>>>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>>>>> problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>

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


Mime
View raw message