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 22:17:55 GMT
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?

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.

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


Mime
View raw message