incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Susan Malaika" <mala...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:39:31 GMT

+1

-----"P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote: -----
To: general@incubator.apache.org
From: "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgoetz@gmail.com>
Date: 09/29/2016 06:09PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

In my mind a "hostile fork" is a fork of a project that goes against the wishes of the copyright
holders and/or community.

I don't consider this proposal to be a hostile fork. In this case the community is eager to
see the project move forward, but the owners of both the copyright and the keys to the castle
(commit permissions) are no longer maintaining the project. Thus the community is left no
other option than to fork in order to make any progress. The owners have also not expressed
any resistance against the fork despite being asked several times. They have expressed an
unwillingness to sign an SGA, but their silence when asked if they would move to block the
proposal seems to indicate some level of approval (lazy consensus) to allow the proposal to
move forward.

I would recommend, as was suggested earlier in this thread, that as champion Henry send a
link to this discussion to legal@ and ask for guidance as to how to proceed.

-Taylor

> On Sep 29, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Some clarification of what constitutes a “hostile fork” would indeed be useful. On
a few occasions I have had discussions with communities on joining Apache, and this often
comes up. We have relied on precedent — and in particular, on-the-record comments by board
members on this list — and it has been working OK.
> 
> Bertrand, can you clarify what you mean by “author”. Do you mean copyright holder
or you mean the individuals? (In this case it is moot, as DataStax is the copyright holder
and the individuals are now mostly DataStax employees, but in other cases it is a material
distinction.)
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...I have a bit of a different understanding. We only accept code contributions
>>> that want to be here....
>> 
>> This sounds similar to the discussions we had about Bloodhound back in
>> early 2012 - Roy had some good comments about what we should or should
>> not accept, at https://s.apache.org/roy_forks_2012
>> 
>> It's not all black and white, but IMO we do need some form of
>> agreement from the original authors about the ASF taking control of
>> their code. Or maybe a demonstration that they really don't care about
>> it anymore, which some of the info in this thread hints to.
>> 
>> -Bertrand
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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



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


Mime
View raw message