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 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:39:41 GMT
Hi Simone

On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:

> Salut a tout le monde,
> 
> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
> codebase was accepted?
> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
> me if I am wrong!
> 
> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> SoftwareGrant,

after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that
software grant has been signed). See also [0]
Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information
on any document that has been signed, 
in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@

WDYT?

Regards

Antonio


[0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4


> so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
> oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(
> 
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
> 
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> yes, that's correct.
>> Tommaso
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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