www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [QUESTION] Importing a project from GitHub
Date Mon, 09 Feb 2015 07:08:27 GMT
Simple approach:

  Review every GitHub contributor's commits.
  Remove any contributor from the list whose PRs were minimal (where I
think code related to the final product has a different 'minimal' bar than
build/Test code).
  Get CLA or grant from every GitHub contributor.

#2 is the one that involves thinking work. I suggest that the project do
that on a wiki, then have Legal PMC audit it.

Hen

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Henri,
>
> Thanks for spotting that.
>
> That makes the license a bit more clear.  It doesn't change the lack of
> copyright headers.  How important those are is an open question, but having
> them does at least allow one to say that everybody who changed those files
> had a very strong chance of seeing what the licensing model is.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On the '2 months old LICENSE.md' - looks like there was a rename (a lot
>> of renaming/moving as file history seems to only b 4 months in that repo
>> despite 4 year commit history).
>>
>> Here's the Apache LICENSE file 4 years back on the original commit:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/dscape/nano/commits/837da4b8258bbb72a92aa1136686d88f0af12eed/LICENSE
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Some information based on perusal of the github repo in question.
>>>
>>> The nano project did not obviously manage their IP cleanly.  The project
>>> LICENSE file was added only two months ago (and it is clearly not identical
>>> to the standard ASL, if only because of lower-casing).  None of the source
>>> files appear to have license headers.
>>>
>>> Many of the smaller contributors have made contributions larger than 100
>>> lines of code.
>>>
>>> I can't say what this means, but it does provide some background and
>>> distinguishes the case from FlexUnit.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apache Flex accepted FlexUnit from GitHub.  The GH community for
>>>> FlexUnit
>>>> had managed its IP cleanly.  The contributors signed contributor
>>>> agreements giving the main contributors right to donate.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 2/6/15, 7:31 AM, "Jan Lehnardt" <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Dear legal-discuss,
>>>> >
>>>> >(if this isn’t the right list to ask this, please direct be to the
>>>> >correct place).
>>>> >
>>>> >The CouchDB community was approached by the lead developer of
>>>> >https://github.com/dscape/nano to have the project become apart of
>>>> Apache
>>>> >CouchDB. The community has voiced some interest in pursuing this. There
>>>> >has not been a vote on this yet, though, this is just to clear any
>>>> >preliminary concerns.
>>>> >
>>>> >Is there a precedent for importing GitHub projects to the ASF?
>>>> >
>>>> >In particular, how do we handle the GitHub-usual main-dev-team + lots
>>>> of
>>>> >drive-by-contrbutors without a clear copyright assignment step in
>>>> place?
>>>> >
>>>> >While the lead developer and copyright holder as per the projects
>>>> >README.md has made the most significant contributions (412 commits /
>>>> >41,036++ / 39,540--), some of the other contributors have
>>>> >not-insignificant (double negative alert!) contributions (17 commits
/
>>>> >613++ / 53--, e.g., see
>>>> >https://github.com/dscape/nano/graphs/contributors for details).
>>>> >
>>>> >As per ASF requirements, is the lead developer in a position to donate
>>>> >the project as a whole to the ASF?
>>>> >
>>>> >Which, if any, of the other contributors will have to co-sign the
>>>> >donation? Or put their contributions under an ICLA of their own? Or
>>>> what
>>>> >other things need to be done?
>>>> >
>>>> >FWIW, the second most prolific contributor expressed interest in moving
>>>> >to the ASF with the project, all legalities covered. The rest are
>>>> pretty
>>>> >much inactive at this point, or have only made insignificant
>>>> >contributions, that were clearly meant to be included in the main
>>>> project.
>>>> >
>>>> >* * *
>>>> >
>>>> >My understanding is that getting the main contributors / active
>>>> >maintainers to do a software grant and/or ICLA will do the trick, as
>>>> >minor contributions that were meant to be included in the project (as
>>>> per
>>>> >regular ASF contributions guidelines), don’t need the legal red tape.
>>>> >
>>>> >That said, where do we make the cut off for significant contributions?
>>>> In
>>>> >the given project, my gut feeling says contributors #1 and #2
>>>> >(https://github.com/dscape/nano/graphs/contributors) will cover what
>>>> we
>>>> >need, but I’d like to get confirmation on this before proceeding.
>>>> >
>>>> >Assume all the other bits (license, dependencies, community vote) would
>>>> >be sorted.
>>>> >
>>>> >Does the above sound reasonable or am I way off on any point?
>>>> >
>>>> >Thank you for your advice!
>>>> >Best
>>>> >Jan
>>>> >--
>>>> >
>>>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> >For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message