incubator-odf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <...@jeremias-maerki.ch>
Subject Re: Source code checked in, what next?
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:29:15 GMT
I think some kind of simplification may be possible. Back in 2008, I
signed and submitted a Sun Contributor Agreement when I contributed to
ODFDOM. That SCA gave Sun the right to sublicense. I assume Oracle and
IBM used a similar process later on (I haven't checked). So maybe an
iCLA is not required by everyone. And of course, some people may already
have an iCLA on file with the ASF.

What is needed anyway is a list of contributors to begin with. Then you
can tick off people by checking their SCA and iCLA status.

BTW, Nick, ODFDOM was not always ALv2. It used to be LGPL. Due to the
SCAs on file, they could change the license.

On 15.09.2011 08:41:41 Daisy Guo wrote:
> 2011/9/13 Nick Burch <nick.burch@alfresco.com>:
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >> Is an SGA appropriate in this case?  This is not a corporate
> >> "donation" of source code.  And it was ALv2 from the start, in the ODF
> >> Toolkit Union, so there is no need to re-license it.
> >>
> >> Maybe handle this as part of the IP review?  If we find any files that
> >> are not under ALv2 or a compatible license, then we need to get an SGA
> >> or remove that file.  Would that work?
> >
> > Have all the original contributors signed an iCLA?
> >
> > The process we need to follow is:
> >  http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> >
> > Roughly speaking, we need everyone who's made (significant) contributions to
> > either file an iCLA, or send in a SGA.
> >
> > (There may be other options as the code was always ASL v2 licensed, but the
> > above is certainly the simplest)
> >
> Is there a simpler process?
> As I know, most contributors of ODFDOM and SimpleODF are belong to IBM
> and Oracle. Besides them, there are several individual contributors of
> ODFDOM,which are hard to find.
> 
> >
> >>> Before a release could happen, there are a few steps that are needed. Off
> >>> the top of my head, these include:
> >>> * Licenses of dependencies need to be checked
> >>> * NOTICE files need to be created, including dependency details if needed
> >>> * License and Incubator discalaimers need checking/adding
> >>> * Rat needs to be setup for the project, with appropriate excludes
> >>> * Missing license headers (as identified by Rat) need to be resolved
> >>> * The release process needs documenting
> >>>
> >>> These things can be a bit of a faff on the first release, but they make
> >>> life
> >>> much much easier going forward, so it's worth tackling them soon (and
> >>> they
> >>> need doing before the first release)
> >>
> >> Sounds painful... until it becomes routine.
> >
> > Most of the work is needed for the 1st release, and all other ones are much
> > much simpler!
> >
> > Nick
> >




Jeremias Maerki


Mime
View raw message