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 2012/03/12 14:41:48 UTC
Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
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>.
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
>>
>