lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: software grants
Date Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:13:53 GMT

"One of the Incubator's roles is to ensure that proper attention is  
paid to intellectual property. From time to time, an external codebase  
is brought into the ASF that is not a separate incubating project but  
still represents a substantial contribution that was not developed  
within the ASF's source control system and on our public mailing  
lists. "

Of course, the nitpicking is likely over the phrase "substantial  

I personally don't get what all the fuss is about.  It's not hard to  
do a grant and it protects us, the ASF and Lucene at the cost of  
taking a little longer, so I think it makes sense to be conservative.   
So, in my mind, when it lives somewhere else in public or was  
developed by a company or several individuals, it needs a grant.  If  
it's just someone doing there thing, then it doesn't.  Often times, it  
is the case that the person donating the code indicates these things,  
as was the case with the Query Parser from IBM.

On Jul 8, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Grant  
> Ingersoll<> wrote:
>> I think it is pretty clear that when the code lives in the public  
>> somewhere
>> else (i.e. source forge or Google code, etc.) it needs to go  
>> through a
>> grant.
> It's not clear to me... I think it's just another factor to consider.
> It also matters how big of a body of code it is, how many people
> developed it over how long, what licenses were used over it's
> development history, etc.  Just because someone may make a patch or
> feature available on github first does not mean a software grant is
> automatically needed.
> -Yonik
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message