logging-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <c...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Granting committer status to log4net developers
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:49:32 GMT
At 07:27 PM 1/5/2004 -0800, Mark Womack wrote:
>+1
>
>On the point of the license and the code, there is some kind of review that
>will take place?  Even though the code is shipped with the ASF license, if
>the project or committers are not part of the ASF, it does not mean the ASF
>owns it or takes liability for it, does it?  Otherwise, the ASF would be
>liable/support code that it is not really responsible for.  It would mean
>that anyone could assign code ownership to the ASF without the ASF
>reviewing/accepting it.  That doesn't sound right to me.


You are absolutely correct. For the reasons you mentioned the ASF does
not like to be assigned copyright for code it does not own legally and
own morally. By the way, I briefly mentioned this in my previous mail

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-logging-general&m=107332540118464&w=2

<self-quote>
   Yes, we would like to avoid any mistakes. Interestingly, enough, since
   1.2beta1 (2002-06-30) log4net is distributed under an Apache License a
   copy of which can be found below.

   This is actually a practice frowned upon by the ASF, but in this
   case it may make things a little simpler. Indeed, by virtue of its
   license log4net has been saying that the ASF owns the code since June
   2002. I don't see how any [log4net] contributor could oppose it
   becoming an ASF project and at the same time allow it to be
   distributed under the ASF license and with an ASF *copyright*.
</self-quote>

Anyway, I think it is a minor point. A Software Grant agreement will
still required but I suspect it should not be too hard to obtain.

>So, while I agree that the ASF license being in the log4net code is a good
>indication of the intent to distribute it under the ASF/ASF-like license,
>some kind of review should still take place.

I think we should keep in mind our primary objective, that is the
development of open software in a collaborative fashion. For the case
of the incoming sub-projects, we must first ensure the legal
properness of the incoming software. Second, we must make sure that
the incoming software is and will continue to be developed in an open
and collaborative fashion. I would like to emphasize the term
"continuos development". There is no desire to harbor orphaned code such
as LF5.

The objectives are clear but there is no miracle recipe to ensure
success. The integration of the sister projects will take time and patience.

>-Mark

-- 
Ceki Gülcü

      For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual"
      ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp  



Mime
View raw message