incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Bezzubov <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Advice on a legal aspect of code contribution
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 02:02:08 GMT
Thank you very much for the kind guidance and the detailed explanation.

It helps and makes perfect sense for me.

One thing though, on 1 - it looks like I have unintentionally confuse
people with the word "complex code contribution", which I referred to the
structure of the patch received, rather than the code.

It was created and sent as a patch by an individual contributor who owns
the IP on 1 (not a committer) and I was under impression that it should be
treated as a regular patch (includes few new files) as we did with similar
contributions before, rather than a full code donation (as it's not really
an external or substantial code base) which should require an IP
clearance/SGA.

Does this make sense?


Thank you again.

--
Alex



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:20 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> Ideally, you would also seek out an SGA from all companies involved in the
> contribution.  If its all Lightbend, they should be able to provide an SGA
> to move the code into an Apache donation, including the license.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:09 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > ...The contribution consists of many files that are going to be part of
> > the
> > > release:...
> >
> > As you have 3 categories of source code files in this contribution I
> > suggest handling all 3 separately, creating a ticket in your issue
> > tracker for each of them so you keep a trace of how they were handled.
> >
> > >  1. some are original author's code under Apach2.0...
> >
> > Unless that author is a committer to your project you'll need an IP
> > clearance for those as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > >  2. some are files copied from one third-party project - Scala [1],
> > > distributed under BSD...
> >
> > For those the recommendations at [5] apply.
> >
> > Do not change the copyright headers in those files, and ideally put
> > them all under a common source code folder or module so that LICENSE
> > can clearly point to them.
> >
> > (that's assuming it makes sense to copy that source code in your
> > project as opposed to using it as an external library)
> >
> > >  3. some are files copied from another third-party project, rscala [2],
> > > distributed under License: GPL-2 | GPL-3 | BSD_3_clause + file
> LICENSE...
> >
> > I have no idea what that license notation means, for those you might
> > need to ask on legal-discuss@apache.org specifically, and maybe create
> > a http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL to keep track of the
> > clarification of the above notation.
> >
> > > ... - What is the best practise for Java RAT checks in case of such
> > > contributions under ASF? Should such files be just added to RAT
> > <ignore>?...
> >
> > Yes, with comments around that rat config to explain what's going on.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [5]
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-license
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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