oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio Sanso <asa...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:40:57 GMT
Hi Raymond

On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:

> Hi, Antonio.
> 
> Thank you for driving the efforts.
> 
> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from
Univ. of Newcastle? 


I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.

Please correct me if I  am wrong.

Regards

Antonio


> 
> Raymond
> 
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> 
>> Hi *,
>> 
>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance
issue.
>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the
current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP
issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to
move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>> 
>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue. 
>> 
>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with
an example.
>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new
module e.g.  oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver,
oauth2-common we should be "safe". 
>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just
hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac  .
>> 
>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to
"hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Antonio
>> 
>> 
>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>> 
>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi *,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>> 
>>>> Should we start considering an alternative?  I am wincing as I say it,
>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>> take some drastic action.
>>> 
>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to
reconsider what Pid has said.
>>> 
>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Antonio
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> p
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail
sent
>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Antonio
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message