www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Committers' hobby projects
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:22:26 GMT
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
> social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
> We've seen it before, on several occasions.****
>
> Examples please????  /Larry****
>
> **
>

Hi Larry,

I provided an example earlier for Apache Directory in this thread. Greg has
a point regarding the social issues this potentially brings about. I've
seen it happen unfortunately.



> **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:20 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* RE: Committers' hobby projects****
>
> ** **
>
> There is technical, and there is social.****
>
> Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It
> is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it
> before, on several occasions.****
>
> On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:****
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional.  Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent).  ****
>
>  ****
>
> That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
> previously with **your** software or who else you gave it to. (As long as
> that earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!) ****
>
>  ****
>
> I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine
> is trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
> distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the
> GPL through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain
> the right to create new derivative works and distribute them. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Roy is correct:****
>
> As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs.  All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
>  ****
>
> ... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!****
>
>  ****
>
> /Larry****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Committers' hobby projects****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
> wrote:****
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> >  http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> > think that is really true.****
>
> Yes, it is true.  This question has been asked and answered before.****
>
>
> > Recognize that the software has been
> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> > control, and then call it ASF code.****
>
> Sure we do.  See Shambhala.  As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs.  All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
>
> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
> >
> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> > general@incubator****
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x****
>
>  ****
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of
> all cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional.  Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent).  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Ralph****
>
>  ****
>



-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message