lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Grant plan
Date Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:29:58 GMT
Hey Marvin,

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
> Greets,
> We need to work out a formal plan for the code import.  Primary guidance is
> located here:
> I asked about examples we might reference on general@incubator.a.o a few days
> ago, but nobody replied (<>), so
> we'll just have to follow the instructions as best we can.

I guess that our situation is very complicated from a legal point of
view and folks might rather be afraid of giving you guidance. It is
also above my head to be honest but we are on a good way to sort it
out with legal...
> I have assembled a list of individuals who have made significant contributions
> to KinoSearch and thus must participate in the software grant.  All of them
> have been contacted privately and expressed their preliminary approval.

> I have also been accumulating a list of people who have made small
> contributions, which while welcome, may not be significant for the purposes of
> the grant.  For these individuals, I think we should have them write to
> lucy-dev indicating whether they agree with that assessment and whether they
> think they need to participate formally.  This is what I see that mod_fcgid
> did:

I really can tell but it seems a good way. I don't really know if
thats practical at all but would it make sense to let those people
sign their mails with a GPG key or something like that. I mean faking
an email address is super easy - I don't think that this has any legal
weight, does it?

> There are also people in the KinoSearch svn logs who are credited for having
> identified bugs or provided ideas, but who did not supply patches or whose
> patches were not incorporated into the code base.  I don't think we need to
> contact these individuals, but we should clarify the status of these commit
> messages.
> To track all of these issues, I think we should open a JIRA issue entitled
> "Software Grant Participants".

+1 - easier to track
> Another task that needs to be completed before the code drop is the excising
> of materials which cannot be relicensed.  For example, the standalone utility
> script trunk/devel/bin/dump_index was adapted by Brian Phillips from an
> original which was published in the Plucene distribution; it will simply not
> be included in the grant.

I guess that is fine though - for stuff like that we have enough
knowledge to rewrite. Being on the safe side gets a +1 from me :)
Is there more stuff like that which needs to be identified?
> Lastly, all references to the current GPL/Artistic licensing need to be
> excised.  My current thought is to remove the licensing information but leave
> the copyright notices with my name in place as sort of a "todo" tag.
Can you elaborate this a bit more, what is the reason for removing the
licensing info and leave a TODO tag? I guess I don't understand this
> The result of this process will be a clean tarball that can be unpacked and
> committed to an "import" directory in one fell swoop.  Then we can proceed by
> through the codebase file by file, removing my copyright, moving other
> copyright and license notifications to LICENCE and NOTICE, and adding the ASF
> headers.

Makes sense to me. There should be a JIRA issue to and we should
really take the time and do that with patches so folks can review and
> I am currently reviewing the KinoSearch commit history commit by commit
> looking for IP issues and assembling an authoritative list of contributors.
> This is laborious, but it is important work; the audit has yielded one
> additional name for the software grant participant list (see LUCENE-675,
> <>).  I think it will take me another week or two to
> complete my review.  Once that's done, I'll branch and tag the KinoSearch
> repository and prepare the grant tarball and checksum.

Awesome - seems like we are moving forward!
> It would be nice to begin contacting our small contributors now; if one of
> them decides that they need to participate in the formal grant, we need to
> know that before we prepare the paperwork.  For what it's worth, the
> possibility exists that I will identify other contributions during the audit
> that were missed during the initial scan, but I don't think we should wait, as
> that would hold up the assembly of the grant paperwork (which is supposed to
> include all names).
>    The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while
>    everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an MD5
>    hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is recommended
>    that the software grant form is modified in order to have a line for each
>    party so the completeness of the paperwork can be verified upon receipt.
> I'm thinking that I should send a private mail to each of the small
> contributors like the following.
>    Greetings [name of valued contributor],
>    The KinoSearch project is being assimilated by Apache Lucy
>    (<>), and we are in the midst of preparing
>    the formal software grant to relicense the code base to the Apache
>    Software Foundation.  We need all significant past contributors to
>    KinoSearch to particpate in this grant.
>    So far, we have identified only the contributions below from you:
>    [link to JIRA comment]
>    While valuable to the project, the sum total of them may not be
>    significant for the purposes of copyright.  If you agree with that
>    assessment, it is not necessary for you to participate in the formal
>    grant; however, we would like to have a public record of your agreement so
>    that we may use your code freely.  Therefore, we would appreciate it if
>    you would send a message to the public mailing list lucy-dev@
>    with the following text:
>        I agree that I do not consider the sum total of the contributions at
>        [link to JIRA comment] significant for the purposes of the KinoSearch
>        software grant.
>    If you have any questions or concerns, please drop a line to lucy-dev@.
>    Thanks for your past contributions,
>    Marvin Humphrey

sounds good to me! go for it!
> (I'll expand lucy-dev@ in the actual mails, of course.)
> Sound good?

+1 from my side and thanks for all the hard work!

> Alternatively, we could just list everyone in the grant paperwork, no matter
> how small the patch.  But then if it takes a while to contact someone, I'm not
> sure where that leaves us.
> Marvin Humphrey

View raw message