Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F1A83E9BD for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51047 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2012 12:50:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 50485 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2012 12:50:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 50458 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2012 12:50:14 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:50:14 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [78.134.5.44] (HELO rovere.tirasa.net) (78.134.5.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:50:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rovere.tirasa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143FE1867F4; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tirasa.net Received: from rovere.tirasa.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rovere.tirasa.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGaZv0cY+Fb5; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (mogano.tirasa.net [192.168.0.2]) by rovere.tirasa.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA46186530; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50AE1F67.2090701@apache.org> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:43 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?RnJhbmNlc2NvIENoaWNjaGlyaWNjw7I=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: legal-discuss@apache.org CC: syncope-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Customer reference in NOTICE References: <50ACF2C2.7090301@apache.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000802070205010409030409" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------000802070205010409030409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 22/11/2012 00:55, Ted Dunning wrote: > Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit > this work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That > seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit > since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level > (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as > personal initiative). If "the person" is me and "the company" is SURF, I have already commented in another reply that the work is about a feature already planned into the roadmap by the community. From my point of view, this means that SURF asking to commit this work into the project's repository - instead of keeping it secret somewhere else - is actually a good thing. Do you still think I am crossing any wire? Can you please elaborate? Thanks. Regards. > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt > wrote: > > How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the > source repository. Isn't this a community decision ? > -- Francesco Chicchiriccò ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/ --------------000802070205010409030409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 22/11/2012 00:55, Ted Dunning wrote:
Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit this work or cause this work to be committed to the project.  That seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).

If "the person" is me and "the company" is SURF, I have already commented in another reply that the work is about a feature already planned into the roadmap by the community.

From my point of view, this means that SURF asking to commit this work into the project's repository - instead of keeping it secret somewhere else - is actually a good thing.

Do you still think I am crossing any wire? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.

Regards.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net> wrote:
How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
-- 
Francesco Chicchiriccò

ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
--------------000802070205010409030409--