incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Short form IP clearance
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:37:19 GMT
It certainly is not optional, and it would be very unfortunate if TLPs
thought so or are unaware. One of the reasons I'd prefer Legal to be the
clear owner. (But to be clear, that is separate from my original post)
On Oct 22, 2015 6:13 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts.
>
> Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?"
>
> My point is that some projects seem to be diligent, while others do not --
> to the point that at times the IP Clearance process seems optional. I would
> expect the incubator ip clearance list to be a lot longer than it is, and
> have more entries especially from some big data projects that accept some
> very large "patches."
>
> I may be overly cautious, but it seems like there are some important legal
> concerns that are being overlooked.
>
> And I'm not trying to create more work for whatever ASF entity is charged
> with policing the process. ;)
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this…
> >
> > hehe... I did too :-)
> >
> >
> >> But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel,
> and
> >> I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or
> how to
> >> go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request
> without
> >> considering IP clearance.
> >>
> >> I’ll admit that I’m unclear on the policy, and try to err on the
> cautious
> >> side.
> >
> > I expect anybody unclear to simply ask. That happens all the time. We
> have
> > press@ to help people with questions about marketing and outreach. We
> have
> > trademarks@ for branding questions. We have legal-internal@ and
> > legal-discuss@ to ask questions about IP clearance (and other legal-ish
> > matters).
> >
> > We have a system of Trust and Independence for our TLPs. The (filed)
> forms
> > are there for a TLP to follow, to check off steps, etc. There is a guide
> > and a description on how to fill out and file the form. And what is
> needed.
> >
> > All good.
> >
> > My concern is the injection of the IPMC into the process, and subjugating
> > one TLP to its will. IMO, that just is not *possible/allowed* by the
> > structure we have set up at the ASF. Thus, step 5 needs some modification
> > and 7/8 need removal to align with the actual structure of the ASF.
> >
> >
> >> I’ve seen commits to TLP projects that made me think “WTF… how did this
> >> evade IP clearance?”.
> >>
> >> I may be overreacting, but it seems to me IP clearance is REALLY
> >> important, and I worry that it may be taken for granted.
> >
> > You say it yourself: commits come from out of the blue. Nobody
> > second-guesses a TLP's series of commits. Nobody second-guesses (say) the
> > trust network they have set up in a KEYS file for their release
> artifacts.
> > The "IP Clearance" process is already *more* controlling than other
> > policies that TLPs must follow.
> >
> > I'm not asking to omit the process, but (IMO) the notion that the IPMC
> has
> > control over our other projects is simply incorrect, so the doc needs
> > updating.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message