lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: software grants
Date Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:27:21 GMT
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.  Likewise, it is often the best approach when a whole  
code dump from a company or individual is brought in.  Agreed, it is a  
bit weird where the bar is set and it is not always obvious when the  
threshold is met.  So, there are a few hard and fast rules that apply  
and there are a whole lot of gray areas.  Same goes for checking the  
box on JIRA vs. filling out a CLA or a CCLA.

The bottom line is, the grant is there for our protection as well as  
the group donating.  I'd rather be conservative and go the extra mile  
and know that Lucene is protected when it is in doubt.  It is easy to  
fill out on our end and it forces the company donating to actually  
think about it.  The delay is almost always on the donator side.

That being said, I'm not particularly concerned about Trie, for the  

On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:

> Regarding the software grant debate in
> IMO, it's pretty subjective what needs a software grant, and I don't
> think we should throw up any hard'n'fast rules about it.  The bottom
> line is that the PMC/committers are responsible for IP oversight for
> everything committed.
> Looking at past software grants from other projects, the bar looks to
> be pretty high before projects typically go through it.
> -Yonik
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message