oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Date Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:51:58 GMT

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