You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> on 2018/06/04 17:46:24 UTC
[DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Hi -
I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.
(1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
(2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or not.
(3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
(4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
(5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully moved to the Secretary.
Regards,
Dave
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Would it be helpful if incubator submissions came with a [IP Review]
subject line? All accepted incubator and already-evaluated TLP records
would still be presented, with a [IP Recorded] or [IP Reviewed] subject
line.
I suspect it is helpful to show all incoming projects the conclusion of
other TLP's ongoing evaluations, but that evaluation for incubating efforts
must happen on this list.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 15:05 Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Thanks to everyone for participating so far. I see that many feel that the
> IP Clearance being part of the Incubator for public recording purposes is
> in the interests of the Foundation.
>
> The records at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html are
> important.
>
> - The direction about new project’s in the box is inconsistent and does
> not get to the proper place.
> - If the process is not for podlings then why are there (incubating)
> projects in the table?
> - There is no instruction about where to add the entry and I see additions
> to both the top and the bottom of the table.
>
> The lefthand navigation has some dead links and the IP Clearance process
> could be made more prominent.
>
> A concern about having IP Clearance from a podling is if the podling is
> retired.
>
> If a podling has a new contribution after the contributions that are
> documented in the Podling Proposal then do they go through this process
> like a TLP or do they just record it?
>
> If a podling is asking for IP Clearance then I think that should NOT be by
> LAZY CONSENSUS.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic
> process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is
> there any feedback provided.
>
>
> It is intended to be a bureaucratic process that is organized and run by
> the PMC with oversight by the IPMC.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html :
> "The intent is to simply help to ensure, and record, that due diligence
> (Software Grant, CLA, Corp CLA, license and dependencies) has been paid to
> the incoming code"
> "The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work. The Incubator is
> simply the repository of the needed information."
> "Note that only lazy consensus is required."
>
>
> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is
> similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to
> follow it or not.
>
>
> The documentation at https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
> discusses Podling IP Clearance.
>
> The documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> discusses non-Podling IP Clearance.
>
> Perhaps a rewrite of either or both of these would be useful. Patches
> welcome.
>
> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that
> is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the
> legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our
> Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
>
>
> Wide visibility is one result of the process being performed under the
> auspices of the incubator. Lazy consensus means that overworked IPMC
> members do not need to be involved if they choose not to be. But they can
> still see that a big code base is being proposed going directly to a TLP.
>
> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to
> go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That
> would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>
> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording
> process be fully moved to the Secretary.
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't see the problem that this change would solve.
>
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
Thanks to everyone for participating so far. I see that many feel that the IP Clearance being part of the Incubator for public recording purposes is in the interests of the Foundation.
The records at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html> are important.
- The direction about new project’s in the box is inconsistent and does not get to the proper place.
- If the process is not for podlings then why are there (incubating) projects in the table?
- There is no instruction about where to add the entry and I see additions to both the top and the bottom of the table.
The lefthand navigation has some dead links and the IP Clearance process could be made more prominent.
A concern about having IP Clearance from a podling is if the podling is retired.
If a podling has a new contribution after the contributions that are documented in the Podling Proposal then do they go through this process like a TLP or do they just record it?
If a podling is asking for IP Clearance then I think that should NOT be by LAZY CONSENSUS.
Regards,
Dave
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi -
>>
>> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.
>
> It is intended to be a bureaucratic process that is organized and run by the PMC with oversight by the IPMC.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html :
> "The intent is to simply help to ensure, and record, that due diligence (Software Grant, CLA, Corp CLA, license and dependencies) has been paid to the incoming code"
> "The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work. The Incubator is simply the repository of the needed information."
> "Note that only lazy consensus is required."
>
>>
>> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
>> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or not.
>
> The documentation at https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html discusses Podling IP Clearance.
>
> The documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html discusses non-Podling IP Clearance.
>
> Perhaps a rewrite of either or both of these would be useful. Patches welcome.
>
>> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
>> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
>
> Wide visibility is one result of the process being performed under the auspices of the incubator. Lazy consensus means that overworked IPMC members do not need to be involved if they choose not to be. But they can still see that a big code base is being proposed going directly to a TLP.
>
>> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>>
>> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully moved to the Secretary.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see the problem that this change would solve.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave,
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.
It is intended to be a bureaucratic process that is organized and run by the PMC with oversight by the IPMC.
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html :
"The intent is to simply help to ensure, and record, that due diligence (Software Grant, CLA, Corp CLA, license and dependencies) has been paid to the incoming code"
"The receiving PMC is responsible for doing the work. The Incubator is simply the repository of the needed information."
"Note that only lazy consensus is required."
>
> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or not.
The documentation at https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html discusses Podling IP Clearance.
The documentation at http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html discusses non-Podling IP Clearance.
Perhaps a rewrite of either or both of these would be useful. Patches welcome.
> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
Wide visibility is one result of the process being performed under the auspices of the incubator. Lazy consensus means that overworked IPMC members do not need to be involved if they choose not to be. But they can still see that a big code base is being proposed going directly to a TLP.
> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>
> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully moved to the Secretary.
I'm afraid I don't see the problem that this change would solve.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
I thought IP clearance in the Incubator was to more thoroughly verify the
code is properly licensed. The Secretary is primarily interested in the
form data being correct and filed appropriately.
On 4 June 2018 at 12:46, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic
> process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is
> there any feedback provided.
>
> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is
> similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to
> follow it or not.
> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that
> is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the
> legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our
> Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to
> go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That
> would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>
> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording
> process be fully moved to the Secretary.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Von Gosling <vo...@apache.org>.
I agree the IPMC only should care about podling. But another question, Is it necessary to guarantee the IP clearance when in TLP, some new TLPs maybe not realize the importance of this question :-)
> 在 2018年6月5日，03:30，Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> 写道：
>
> I can see the IPMC being responsible for IP clearance for new incoming podlings and current podlings.
>
> For code being donated directly to a current TLP, they should be able to do all that is required to ensure correct clearance and provenance.
>
> In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't be involved, IMHO.
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi -
>>
>> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.
>>
>> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
>> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or not.
>> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
>> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
>> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>>
>> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully moved to the Secretary.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Von Gosling <vo...@apache.org>.
clear ~~~
For Podlings, vote in IPMC and document it in the exist center place.
For TLPs, vote in its PMC and document in the exist center place.
> 在 2018年6月5日，16:53，Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch> 写道：
>
> clearance
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
On 5 June 2018 at 10:51, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> That doesn't do any good to the community if this is recorded privately.
>
> Unlike ICLA/CCLA documents which are quasi-private (the existence
> of a committer account is sufficient to document that the appropriate
> forms are on file), other projects that might lean on another project's
> imported component, or want to re-integrate previously cleared external
> IP need to be able to see that the initial IP clearance occurred. That's
> how the notices of IP clearance to general@i.a.o have been useful.
>
Very true. This is why I've been confused by the idea of just putting this
on the secretary since our records are private.
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >> ...In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't
> be involved, IMHO....
> >
> > But it's good to have a central place to record those IP clearances,
> IMO.
>
> Since it's a foundation record, that should be the secretary's job, I
> think. That is, the responsible PMC does the IP clearance and then submits
> that info/record to the ASF secretary for filing.
That doesn't do any good to the community if this is recorded privately.
Unlike ICLA/CCLA documents which are quasi-private (the existence
of a committer account is sufficient to document that the appropriate
forms are on file), other projects that might lean on another project's
imported component, or want to re-integrate previously cleared external
IP need to be able to see that the initial IP clearance occurred. That's
how the notices of IP clearance to general@i.a.o have been useful.
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 08:26, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Since it's a foundation record, that should be the secretary's job, I
>> think. That is, the responsible PMC does the IP clearance and then submits
>> that info/record to the ASF secretary for filing.
>>
> Right. Any software grants are emailed to secretary@ and filed accordingly.
> Same process as CLAs...
Why not, but the IP clearance documents must remain publicly
accessible and discoverable.
Restricting the access rights to change them to secretary might be
good, but as opposed to CLAs and grants the IP clearance documents
need to be modifiable for some time, before being frozen once the
clearance is done.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
On 5 June 2018 at 08:26, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Since it's a foundation record, that should be the secretary's job, I
> think. That is, the responsible PMC does the IP clearance and then submits
> that info/record to the ASF secretary for filing.
>
Right. Any software grants are emailed to secretary@ and filed accordingly.
Same process as CLAs.
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> ...In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't be involved, IMHO....
>
> But it's good to have a central place to record those IP clearances, IMO.
>
Since it's a foundation record, that should be the secretary's job, I think. That is, the responsible PMC does the IP clearance and then submits that info/record to the ASF secretary for filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> ...In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't be involved, IMHO....
But it's good to have a central place to record those IP clearances, IMO.
So maybe:
-The Incubator PMC provides the space for IP clearances to be
documented (as it does now)
-Each PMC is responsible for their own IP clearances, which must be
documented in that place
-For podlings, it's the Incubator PMC who's in charge, as for any
votes that bind the Foundation
This means little change to the actual process - the only thing is
that for TLPs the IP clearance votes happen on their dev lists and are
linked to from the IP clearance pages, instead of happening on the
general@incubator.a.o list as they do now
How does that sound?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
JFYI - while I really comment on the IP threads (unless Is find an issue which is rare) I probably check about 1/2 of them.
But I think the IPMC only dealing with podlings IP requests make sense.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] IP Clearance
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I can see the IPMC being responsible for IP clearance for new incoming podlings and current podlings.
For code being donated directly to a current TLP, they should be able to do all that is required to ensure correct clearance and provenance.
In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't be involved, IMHO.
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> I think that the IP Clearance process has become very much a bureaucratic process where the IPMC is contributing little of value. Very seldom is there any feedback provided.
>
> (1) It is separate from the SGA process for new podlings, but it is similar in that the Secretary will record the SGA and/or CCLA.
> (2) The documentation is confusing about whether or not podlings need to follow it or not.
> (3) Top Level Projects are supposed to understand how to clear IP as that is a major part of the incubation process. If there are any questions the legal-discuss mailing list and JIRA are available.
> (4) The Incubator is already stretched to provide Mentoring to all of our Podlings and IP Clearance seems to be off topic and not really scalable.
> (5) Once a TLP graduates from the Incubator it seems regressive to have to go back unless there is a Community around the grant to be Incubated. That would lead to a Podling Proposal and not IP Clearance.
>
> I think that the IPMC should recommend to the Board that this recording process be fully moved to the Secretary.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org