Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of asanso@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.191 as permitted sender)
From: Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
To: "amber-dev@incubator.apache.org" <amber-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:11:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Thread-Topic: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Thread-Index: Ac0BAaKlt9wFCBbnShKDnDDl2RN75A==
Message-ID: <16B7A249-D67A-4229-943F-D64C3B799FE2@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAOFYJNYTNgSZjUheW0Z32nKOLiSsjsh_LZBgykXjn=v80hVmsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <80984EE6-0B71-4F94-815A-83677FA7D458@adobe.com>
 <CAGnSx05VkpfCC+inPdDamC55jzbdwxFgJYT00kNzwQW5BzCktQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <-2081503742751255287@unknownmsgid>
 <2DFD6EE6-805F-4F13-AA79-15642B61DF20@adobe.com>
 <8C83BEB0-244B-445E-89CA-A5EBCDD9E7D2@adobe.com>
 <F1ED0F9B-DBAF-463D-BE3E-58248314C82B@gmail.com>
 <12E570C3-C678-4CE0-B613-771D62BE81FE@adobe.com>
 <BB1E2871-2220-40F4-A0E0-7AE6FEB412F0@gmail.com>
 <CAAqLGLNua2UmEuS=p_L41kGiZFwmfNWGDHK_+Q8MYsGNgwumpQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAqLGLNua2UmEuS=p_L41kGiZFwmfNWGDHK_+Q8MYsGNgwumpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi Simone,


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

> Salut a tout le monde,
>=20
> 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!
>=20
> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> SoftwareGrant, so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
> oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(


as said IANAL and I am a bit lost as well :S.=20
I am just a bit concern since this IP clearance issue comes out every time =
we  try to talk about next release plan or graduation plan.
So mine is just an attempt to better understand the situation and try to mo=
ve bit forward :)
Should I have said something incorrect legally/process wise I do apologize =
:)

Regards

Antonio

>=20
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
>=20
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
>=20
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>>=20
>>> Hi Raymond
>>>=20
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Hi, Antonio.
>>>>=20
>>>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>>>=20
>>>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of t=
he source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence Univer=
sity of Newcastle.
>>> Please correct me if I  am wrong.
>>=20
>> yes, that's correct.
>> Tommaso
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Regards
>>>=20
>>> Antonio
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Raymond
>>>>=20
>>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>=20
>>>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck du=
e 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 contribu=
tion 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 proposa=
l in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or =
have any other proposal):
>>>>>=20
>>>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP relate=
d issue.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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 c=
reate a new module e.g.  oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other mod=
ule oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (agai=
n this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac  .
>>>>>=20
>>>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have b=
een taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do =
that.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am sta=
rting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last repo=
rt?
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (ma=
il sent
>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20