You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oltu.apache.org by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> on 2012/01/31 09:25:10 UTC
Re: Questions for projects
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
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut,
>
> what is not clear to me how to think about possible solutions if we
> still haven't understood the entity of the problem.
>
I do agree with you. Problem here is that we have been stuck for a long while now on this issue and we really need to do something in order to move forward.
Regards
Antonio
> Thanks for leading the issue,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simone,
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi +,
>>>
>>> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
>>> suggestion?
>>
>> I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>>
>>> TIA!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi *,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>>
>>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut,
what is not clear to me how to think about possible solutions if we
still haven't understood the entity of the problem.
Thanks for leading the issue,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Simone,
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi +,
>>
>> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
>> suggestion?
>
> I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>>
>> TIA!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi +,
>
> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
> suggestion?
I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
Regards
Antonio
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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 <as...@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
>>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi +,
which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
suggestion?
TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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 <as...@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
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Wow, thank you very much Antonio for this huge effort!
I'll read and try to re-understand what happened.
Have a nice day,
Tommaso
2012/3/15 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> Hi all,
> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been
> dug further the mailing list.
> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can
> use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did
> anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
>
> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>
>
> [0]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [3]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [4]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [5]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [6]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [7]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
> > Hi Simone
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >
> >> Salut a tout le monde,
> >>
> >> 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!
> >>
> >> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> >> SoftwareGrant,
> >
> > after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about
> that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
> > Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to
> collect any information on any document that has been signed,
> > in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> >
> > [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
> >
>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
apologies something got messed up with previous email response template (making the mail hard to read). I try again :)
Hi Raymond
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Antonio.
>
> Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
>
> So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
IIUC correctly yes.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
>> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
if there is not anything in progress with legal@ I might volunteer to start this thread. Or is there anybody with more legal/process knowledge that wants to do it?
Regards
Antonio
>>
>> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
>> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
>> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
>> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
>> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
>> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
>> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
>> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
>> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>>
>>
>> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Simone
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>>>> SoftwareGrant,
>>>
>>> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
>>> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
>>> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Raymond
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Antonio.
Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
IIUC correctly yes.
" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
if there is not anything in progress with legal@ I might volunteer to start this thread. Or is there anybody with more legal/process knowledge that wants to do it?
Regards
Antonio
10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
[0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
Regards
Antonio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
Hi Simone
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Salut a tout le monde,
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!
As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
SoftwareGrant,
after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
WDYT?
Regards
Antonio
[0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Antonio.
Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
Thanks,
Raymond
On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi all,
> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
>
> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>
>
> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi Simone
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>>> SoftwareGrant,
>>
>> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
>> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
>> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi all,
to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
[0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
Regards
Antonio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi Simone
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>> SoftwareGrant,
>
> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut a tout le monde,
>
> 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!
>
> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> SoftwareGrant,
after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
WDYT?
Regards
Antonio
[0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
> so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
> oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(
>
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
>
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut a tout le monde,
>
> 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!
>
> 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.
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 move bit forward :)
Should I have said something incorrect legally/process wise I do apologize :)
Regards
Antonio
>
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
>
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut a tout le monde,
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!
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 :(
NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
TIA all, have a nice day,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
<to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
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.
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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
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?
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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>>
>
Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
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 <to...@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 <as...@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
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi *,
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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 <as...@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
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
2012/3/6 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> Hi Maciej,
>
> thanks a lot for the update.
> As noticed as well from you this IP clearance issue seems to be a pretty
> "big deal" for the project.
> IANAL but I think it would block our first release if we can not solve it.
> And consequently this would block our potential graduation plan.
> For this reason it would be nice to have a clear picture of the current
> situation and also from the past.
> Just to be clear my intention is only to understand and trying to move
> forward. If any of my questions would look inquisitive or "rude" I do
> apologize in advance.
> As long as I understood Leeloo was a project started under the umbrella of
> the Newcastle University.
> At a certain point you guys decided to donate to the ASF.
> Did the Newcastle University agreed at that point? If yes, does still
> agree now? If yes, :) what is the real blocker/issue? Is it more a formal
> issue?
> Is there any way we (project members/mentors) can help speed the process?
>
> Thanks a lot for your effort on it and regards
>
Thanks to you Antonio as I do have the same the concerns about this topic.
Looking forward to have a clearer view.
Tommaso
>
> Antonio
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>
> > I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
> > Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
> > I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
> > issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
> > projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
> > on that issue and if we can move forward.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Maciej
> >
> > On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Maciej,
> >>
> >> sorry to bother you again on it.
> >> But do you have any update ?
> >> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would
> be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Antonio
> >>
> >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
> >>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
> >>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
> >>>
> >>> Maciej
> >>>
> >>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code
> grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
> >>>>
> >>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz
> who
> >>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with
> their code.
> >>>>
> >>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
> >>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
> >>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> p
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Raymond
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Pid,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think
> directions/actions
> >>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made
> and
> >>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking
> to
> >>>>>> the relevant people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> p
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tommaso
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> p
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tommaso
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [key:62590808]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> [key:62590808]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Maciej Machulak
> >>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> >>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Maciej Machulak
> > email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> > cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Maciej,
thanks a lot for the update.
As noticed as well from you this IP clearance issue seems to be a pretty "big deal" for the project.
IANAL but I think it would block our first release if we can not solve it. And consequently this would block our potential graduation plan.
For this reason it would be nice to have a clear picture of the current situation and also from the past.
Just to be clear my intention is only to understand and trying to move forward. If any of my questions would look inquisitive or "rude" I do apologize in advance.
As long as I understood Leeloo was a project started under the umbrella of the Newcastle University.
At a certain point you guys decided to donate to the ASF.
Did the Newcastle University agreed at that point? If yes, does still agree now? If yes, :) what is the real blocker/issue? Is it more a formal issue?
Is there any way we (project members/mentors) can help speed the process?
Thanks a lot for your effort on it and regards
Antonio
On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
> Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
> I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
> issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
> projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
> on that issue and if we can move forward.
>
> Cheers,
> Maciej
>
> On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi Maciej,
>>
>> sorry to bother you again on it.
>> But do you have any update ?
>> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
>>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
>>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>>>
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>>>
>>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>>>
>>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Raymond
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Maciej Machulak
>>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
>>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maciej Machulak
> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Maciej Machulak <ma...@gmail.com>.
I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
on that issue and if we can move forward.
Cheers,
Maciej
On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> sorry to bother you again on it.
> But do you have any update ?
> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
>
> Thanks
>
> Antonio
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>>
>> Maciej
>>
>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>>
>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>>
>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>>
>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>>
>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [key:62590808]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maciej Machulak
>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>
--
Maciej Machulak
email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Maciej,
sorry to bother you again on it.
But do you have any update ?
I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
Thanks
Antonio
On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>
> Maciej
>
> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>
>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>
>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>
>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>
>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>
>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maciej Machulak
> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Maciej Machulak <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
Maciej
On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>
> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>
> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>
> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>
> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>
>
> p
>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>
>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>
>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>
>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>> the relevant people.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [key:62590808]
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>
--
Maciej Machulak
email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
to complete the grant, without success so far.
p
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>> Hi Pid,
>>>
>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>
>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>
>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>> the relevant people.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
Thanks,
Raymond
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>> Hi Pid,
>>
>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>> from our mentors are needed here.
>
> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>
> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
> the relevant people.
>
>
> p
>
>> Tommaso
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi Pid,
>
> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
> from our mentors are needed here.
I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
the relevant people.
p
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>>
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Hi Pid,
Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
from our mentors are needed here.
Tommaso
2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
>
>
> p
>
>
>
> > Tommaso
> >
> > 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@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.
p
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
Tommaso
2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@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