You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@syncope.apache.org by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> on 2012/11/21 16:26:58 UTC
Customer reference in NOTICE
Hi,
in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
NOTICE file the following extract:
Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
another grant for Syncope?
Thanks for your support.
Regards.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/ux6xpt332uoqfjdq
[2]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/donations/surfconext-portal/coin-portal/trunk/NOTICE
[3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
[4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
A better way to say this would be "required to contribute the code to
Syncope". Requiring it to actually be a part of the official
repository is outside of your individual control (ie: the community
could disagree, someone else could delete it later etc). Requiring it
be in the codebase tries to turn Apache into a consultancy company.
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
You could view this as an Apache licensed work with a NOTICE file
containing the above that is being included in Syncope, rather than
coming in over the CLA. Alternatively, you have to identify any other
rights holders when contributing code under the ICLA (clause 7). It
sounds as though SURF are the rights holder for the work, so
identifying their copyright in the NOTICE is fair if desired.
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
The important item is that you've signed an ICLA and that you have the
permissions to contribute.
Text-wise, I think it's fine for the NOTICE to include something like:
"Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. "
We should police that for marketing speak. If it said: "The World's
greatest ICT", that would be bad. For example on the above - is SURF
the only one of these organizations, or should it be "a higher
education ... "? This raises the side question of a NOTICE file that
contains incorrect details :) "Portions Copyright Bob the Skull, the
lead Apache Rave committer".
I think the following shouldn't be included: "For more information
about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl. ". That's not valid to giving
NOTICE.
Community wise this gets interesting for us as it turns NOTICE files
into advertising locations and everyone will want to be listed for the
smallest of contributions ["Based on a bug report by the Yandell
Family, Inc."]. I think the answer is that it's meritocratic, anyone
contributing can ask to be listed, however we have to maintain
editorial control.
SURF can ask that they be called out in the NOTICE, and even propose
text but we determine the way in which we do that.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote on Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 16:26:58 +0100:
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
Maybe include their text in the AUTHORS file, or in who-we-are.html (in
an "Affiliation" column?), etc.?
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Nov 23, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of
>> my
>> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
>> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the
>> official
>> Syncope repository and releases...
>
> As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
> code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
> efforts that will help make that happen.
>
>> ...and are also asking to include in the
>> NOTICE file the following extract...
>
> I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
> - in the good old Cocoon times we used
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
> which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
>
> -Bertrand
>
In the OpenJPA project, there is a "Thanks" page for individuals and
organizations who helped the project in various ways. I would see no
issue if Syncope created such a page and listed SURFNet as helping to
fund the implementation of such-and-so feature.
http://openjpa.apache.org/thanks.html
Craig
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
first of all, thanks for your support: I must admit that I can follow
this kind of considerations until a certain point before getting lost.
About this:
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official Syncope repository and releases...
I just want to reassure that it is mainly bad phrasing from my side: I
just wanted to emphasize that they did not intend to keep such
development private.
I am perfectly aware that no one but the PMC and the project community
are the only responsible of what is included in ASF releases.
As suggested by some people, I will then avoid any NOTICE 'improper'
entry and ask the community to add a "Thanks to" section in the release
notes (of the release that will actually contain the feature).
Regards.
On 23/11/2012 09:09, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
>> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
>> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
>> Syncope repository and releases...
> As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
> code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
> efforts that will help make that happen.
>
>> ...and are also asking to include in the
>> NOTICE file the following extract...
> I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
> - in the good old Cocoon times we used
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
> which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
>
> -Bertrand
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
first of all, thanks for your support: I must admit that I can follow
this kind of considerations until a certain point before getting lost.
About this:
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official Syncope repository and releases...
I just want to reassure that it is mainly bad phrasing from my side: I
just wanted to emphasize that they did not intend to keep such
development private.
I am perfectly aware that no one but the PMC and the project community
are the only responsible of what is included in ASF releases.
As suggested by some people, I will then avoid any NOTICE 'improper'
entry and ask the community to add a "Thanks to" section in the release
notes (of the release that will actually contain the feature).
Regards.
On 23/11/2012 09:09, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
>> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
>> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
>> Syncope repository and releases...
> As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
> code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
> efforts that will help make that happen.
>
>> ...and are also asking to include in the
>> NOTICE file the following extract...
> I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
> - in the good old Cocoon times we used
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
> which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
>
> -Bertrand
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
On Nov 23, 2012, at 12:09 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of
>> my
>> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
>> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the
>> official
>> Syncope repository and releases...
>
> As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
> code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
> efforts that will help make that happen.
>
>> ...and are also asking to include in the
>> NOTICE file the following extract...
>
> I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
> - in the good old Cocoon times we used
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
> which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
>
> -Bertrand
>
In the OpenJPA project, there is a "Thanks" page for individuals and
organizations who helped the project in various ways. I would see no
issue if Syncope created such a page and listed SURFNet as helping to
fund the implementation of such-and-so feature.
http://openjpa.apache.org/thanks.html
Craig
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases...
As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
efforts that will help make that happen.
> ...and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract...
I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
- in the good old Cocoon times we used
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases...
As others have said, you cannot accept this clause - including that
code is a decision of the receiving PMC, you can only commit to best
efforts that will help make that happen.
> ...and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract...
I also agree with others that NOTICE is not the place for such things
- in the good old Cocoon times we used
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/CREDITS.txt
which works well IMO, as long as you state only true facts in there.
-Bertrand
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Please note that Rave is a different case. SurfNet made a significant
donation of code on entry to the incubator. It was one of three complete
implementations that bootstrapped the Rave project. It was not a feature
contribution to an existing project.
Ross
Sent from my tablet
On Nov 23, 2012 12:22 AM, "Martin van den Bemt" <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
>
>
> 2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>
>> On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>>
>> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this
>> to happen at the ASF.
>>
>> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
>> work on open source ?
>> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
>> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
>> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
>> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
>> the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
>> their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
>> treatment.
>>
>> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
>> incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
>> things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
>> more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
>> right.
>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>> I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
>>
>> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
>> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>>
>
> Cool, so they help you develop it. Just thank them when closing the task
> and in the releasenotes (like we always do, also to people who send small
> patches).
>
>
>> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
>> its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
>> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>>
>
> That it is required (=explicitly requested) by surfnet is my biggest issue
> here. It's simply not their decision.
>
>
>> 3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
>> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
>> feasible, I will just report to them
>>
>
> I think other people gave better input (Ted,
>
>
>>
>> Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right"
>> exactly:
>>
>> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
>> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
>> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>>
>
> No problem here.
>
>
>>
>> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
>> NOTICE file
>>
>
> That's the one a bit and that and
>
>
>>
>> If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
>> differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a private
>> repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as it seems
>> to happen with Rave [2])?
>>
>
> Besides the fact that I am not exactly sure what the donations tree in
> rave is about (it contains references to outside website for documentation,
> no renamed package names, etc), it looks better as module donation and
> since the complete code of that module is donated by the same entity a
> notice entry in their module is ok (that's the way they donated it). What
> would not be ok in that instance (at least for me) is some committer just
> committing that code as a module, without following the right processes to
> import a new codebase in Apache.
> You have a hybrid model here, where it is acted like something is a
> donation as a whole, when there is actually just normal development going
> on in a branch with you as the indivudual ASF committer. If it is part of
> the roadmap, you can just add a thanks to surfnet for funding the
> developer. So if it is the case like Benson said (acadamic funding requires
> acknowledgement) I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.
>
> Hope it is not too late for "polite push-back" to quote Benson. Anyhow
> they are already in our thanks page :
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html for hosting some of our
> servers..
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Please note that Rave is a different case. SurfNet made a significant
donation of code on entry to the incubator. It was one of three complete
implementations that bootstrapped the Rave project. It was not a feature
contribution to an existing project.
Ross
Sent from my tablet
On Nov 23, 2012 12:22 AM, "Martin van den Bemt" <ml...@mvdb.net> wrote:
>
>
> 2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>
>> On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>>
>> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this
>> to happen at the ASF.
>>
>> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
>> work on open source ?
>> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
>> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
>> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
>> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
>> the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
>> their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
>> treatment.
>>
>> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
>> incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
>> things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
>> more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
>> right.
>>
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>> I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
>>
>> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
>> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>>
>
> Cool, so they help you develop it. Just thank them when closing the task
> and in the releasenotes (like we always do, also to people who send small
> patches).
>
>
>> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
>> its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
>> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>>
>
> That it is required (=explicitly requested) by surfnet is my biggest issue
> here. It's simply not their decision.
>
>
>> 3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
>> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
>> feasible, I will just report to them
>>
>
> I think other people gave better input (Ted,
>
>
>>
>> Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right"
>> exactly:
>>
>> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
>> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
>> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>>
>
> No problem here.
>
>
>>
>> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
>> NOTICE file
>>
>
> That's the one a bit and that and
>
>
>>
>> If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
>> differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a private
>> repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as it seems
>> to happen with Rave [2])?
>>
>
> Besides the fact that I am not exactly sure what the donations tree in
> rave is about (it contains references to outside website for documentation,
> no renamed package names, etc), it looks better as module donation and
> since the complete code of that module is donated by the same entity a
> notice entry in their module is ok (that's the way they donated it). What
> would not be ok in that instance (at least for me) is some committer just
> committing that code as a module, without following the right processes to
> import a new codebase in Apache.
> You have a hybrid model here, where it is acted like something is a
> donation as a whole, when there is actually just normal development going
> on in a branch with you as the indivudual ASF committer. If it is part of
> the roadmap, you can just add a thanks to surfnet for funding the
> developer. So if it is the case like Benson said (acadamic funding requires
> acknowledgement) I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.
>
> Hope it is not too late for "polite push-back" to quote Benson. Anyhow
> they are already in our thanks page :
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html for hosting some of our
> servers..
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>
> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this to
> happen at the ASF.
>
> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
> work on open source ?
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
> the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
> their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
> treatment.
>
> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
> incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
> things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
> more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
> right.
>
>
> Hi Martin,
> I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
>
> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>
Cool, so they help you develop it. Just thank them when closing the task
and in the releasenotes (like we always do, also to people who send small
patches).
> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since its
> scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>
That it is required (=explicitly requested) by surfnet is my biggest issue
here. It's simply not their decision.
> 3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
> feasible, I will just report to them
>
I think other people gave better input (Ted,
>
> Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
>
> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>
No problem here.
>
> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
> NOTICE file
>
That's the one a bit and that and
>
> If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
> differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a private
> repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as it seems
> to happen with Rave [2])?
>
Besides the fact that I am not exactly sure what the donations tree in rave
is about (it contains references to outside website for documentation, no
renamed package names, etc), it looks better as module donation and since
the complete code of that module is donated by the same entity a notice
entry in their module is ok (that's the way they donated it). What would
not be ok in that instance (at least for me) is some committer just
committing that code as a module, without following the right processes to
import a new codebase in Apache.
You have a hybrid model here, where it is acted like something is a
donation as a whole, when there is actually just normal development going
on in a branch with you as the indivudual ASF committer. If it is part of
the roadmap, you can just add a thanks to surfnet for funding the
developer. So if it is the case like Benson said (acadamic funding requires
acknowledgement) I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.
Hope it is not too late for "polite push-back" to quote Benson. Anyhow they
are already in our thanks page :
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html for hosting some of our
servers..
Mvgr,
Martin
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
> wrote:
> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>
That is fine.
> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
> its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>
Creating a separate branch for development is a fine thing and if you are a
committer, I think you should decide whether it is in the APache repo or
something like github.
Your funder can constrain whether you publicize this work or not as it is
in development. Developing in the open is good, generally.
3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
> feasible, I will just report to them
>
That's all well and good. What is out of line is if your customer is
effectively trying to bind ASF in the matter of whether their funded
contributions are included in the release. The ASF won't guarantee that
and you should make clear that you can't either.
Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
>
> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>
No problem here.
> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
> NOTICE file
>
The easiest way to require an acknowledgment is to originally license the
code with a BSD license. That allows the community to see the issues on
the code itself. It also kind of implies that you do the development an a
non-Apache repo.
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
2012/11/22 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>
> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this to
> happen at the ASF.
>
> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
> work on open source ?
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
> the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
> their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
> treatment.
>
> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
> incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
> things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
> more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
> right.
>
>
> Hi Martin,
> I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
>
> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>
Cool, so they help you develop it. Just thank them when closing the task
and in the releasenotes (like we always do, also to people who send small
patches).
> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since its
> scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>
That it is required (=explicitly requested) by surfnet is my biggest issue
here. It's simply not their decision.
> 3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
> feasible, I will just report to them
>
I think other people gave better input (Ted,
>
> Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
>
> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>
No problem here.
>
> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
> NOTICE file
>
That's the one a bit and that and
>
> If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
> differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a private
> repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as it seems
> to happen with Rave [2])?
>
Besides the fact that I am not exactly sure what the donations tree in rave
is about (it contains references to outside website for documentation, no
renamed package names, etc), it looks better as module donation and since
the complete code of that module is donated by the same entity a notice
entry in their module is ok (that's the way they donated it). What would
not be ok in that instance (at least for me) is some committer just
committing that code as a module, without following the right processes to
import a new codebase in Apache.
You have a hybrid model here, where it is acted like something is a
donation as a whole, when there is actually just normal development going
on in a branch with you as the indivudual ASF committer. If it is part of
the roadmap, you can just add a thanks to surfnet for funding the
developer. So if it is the case like Benson said (acadamic funding requires
acknowledgement) I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient.
Hope it is not too late for "polite push-back" to quote Benson. Anyhow they
are already in our thanks page :
http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html for hosting some of our
servers..
Mvgr,
Martin
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
> wrote:
> 1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
> present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
>
That is fine.
> 2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
> its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
> SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
>
Creating a separate branch for development is a fine thing and if you are a
committer, I think you should decide whether it is in the APache repo or
something like github.
Your funder can constrain whether you publicize this work or not as it is
in development. Developing in the open is good, generally.
3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
> checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
> feasible, I will just report to them
>
That's all well and good. What is out of line is if your customer is
effectively trying to bind ASF in the matter of whether their funded
contributions are included in the release. The ASF won't guarantee that
and you should make clear that you can't either.
Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
>
> a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code for
> a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be contributed
> back to the original project instead of laying in some private repository
>
No problem here.
> b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
> NOTICE file
>
The easiest way to require an acknowledgment is to originally license the
code with a BSD license. That allows the community to see the issues on
the code itself. It also kind of implies that you do the development an a
non-Apache repo.
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want
> this to happen at the ASF.
>
> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
> work on open source ?
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the
> source repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies
> in the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies
> without their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive
> the same treatment.
>
> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based
> on incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these
> kind of things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I
> learned here more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just
> doesn't feel right.
Hi Martin,
I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
feasible, I will just report to them
Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code
for a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be
contributed back to the original project instead of laying in some
private repository
b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
NOTICE file
If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a
private repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as
it seems to happen with Rave [2])?
Regards.
> 2012/11/21 Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>
>
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related
> to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the
> SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for
> Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more
> information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl <http://www.surf.nl>.
>
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ux6xpt332uoqfjdq
> [2]
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/donations/surfconext-portal/coin-portal/trunk/NOTICE
> [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SYNCOPE/Roadmap
[6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-171
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 22/11/2012 00:55, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
> this work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That
> seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit
> since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level
> (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as
> personal initiative).
If "the person" is me and "the company" is SURF, I have already
commented in another reply that the work is about a feature already
planned into the roadmap by the community.
From my point of view, this means that SURF asking to commit this work
into the project's repository - instead of keeping it secret somewhere
else - is actually a good thing.
Do you still think I am crossing any wire? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.
Regards.
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net
> <ma...@mvdb.net>> wrote:
>
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the
> source repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/22/12 12:55 AM, Ted Dunning a écrit :
> Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
> this work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That
> seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit
> since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level
> (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading
> as personal initiative).
Although I do think that such a contribution should always be discussed,
and approved, openly before being accepted and done, in many cases the
company (or public organisation) is just trying to get some guarantee
that the work will be endorsed by the community : this is the only way
for such additions to be supported by the community.
There is a large shift those days compared to what it was 10 years ago
in the way OSS is used : there is a large consensus in gov organizations
that using OSS and even contributing to OSS is a big plus. One month
ago, for instance, the French prime minister published a letter [1]
(well, it was more than a letter, it was a directive) pushing toward the
mass adoption of OSS in *all* the French civil services, and this
includes spending 10% of the IT budget to actually *support* OSS and
private companies that work on OSS. When you know that the French gov
spending represent 55% of the French GDP, just do the math... Such
collaboration, support, and if need be, contribution, requires that they
are endorsed by the communities. That mainly implies they pay external
people to add some new features, but they also require that some mention
of such 'contribution' is done.
This is a complex situation, and we may have to think about what it
implies for The ASF. IMHO, such contribution is really different from
those made under the umbrella of a private company, where *many* of the
current contributions are done so far.
[1]
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/french-guideline-favours-use-free-and-open-source
A mostly complete translation in english is available here :
http://pad.april.org/p/translationayraultcircular
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 11/22/12 12:55 AM, Ted Dunning a écrit :
> Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
> this work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That
> seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit
> since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level
> (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading
> as personal initiative).
Although I do think that such a contribution should always be discussed,
and approved, openly before being accepted and done, in many cases the
company (or public organisation) is just trying to get some guarantee
that the work will be endorsed by the community : this is the only way
for such additions to be supported by the community.
There is a large shift those days compared to what it was 10 years ago
in the way OSS is used : there is a large consensus in gov organizations
that using OSS and even contributing to OSS is a big plus. One month
ago, for instance, the French prime minister published a letter [1]
(well, it was more than a letter, it was a directive) pushing toward the
mass adoption of OSS in *all* the French civil services, and this
includes spending 10% of the IT budget to actually *support* OSS and
private companies that work on OSS. When you know that the French gov
spending represent 55% of the French GDP, just do the math... Such
collaboration, support, and if need be, contribution, requires that they
are endorsed by the communities. That mainly implies they pay external
people to add some new features, but they also require that some mention
of such 'contribution' is done.
This is a complex situation, and we may have to think about what it
implies for The ASF. IMHO, such contribution is really different from
those made under the umbrella of a private company, where *many* of the
current contributions are done so far.
[1]
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/french-guideline-favours-use-free-and-open-source
A mostly complete translation in english is available here :
http://pad.april.org/p/translationayraultcircular
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sorry Benson, auto correct munged your name in the mail below.
Sent from my tablet
On Nov 22, 2012 11:23 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Bensin has this right. This is a common request from funders. Until a
> coiple of yearsnago this was what I dealt with daily. I always sought to
> educate the funders.
>
> My view was always thatnthe Notice file is not for this kind of thing.
> Some projects opted for a web page with no link back. Others simply said no.
>
> Ross
>
> Sent from my tablet
> On Nov 22, 2012 1:00 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> It looks to me like we might be having some linguistic and cultural
>> disconnection here.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure, but this reads to like a situation that comes
>> up in Europe from time to time, where academic funding comes with
>> requirements for acknowledgement. This doesn't make it instantly
>> legitimately here, but viewing this as a commercial enterprise
>> demanding credit is perhaps not the most illuminating view. It is also
>> possible that polite push-back to the academic partnership by the
>> Foundation could yield a resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
>> this
>> > work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That seems
>> like the
>> > person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache
>> > contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there
>> are
>> > plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
>> >> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Bensin has this right. This is a common request from funders. Until a
coiple of yearsnago this was what I dealt with daily. I always sought to
educate the funders.
My view was always thatnthe Notice file is not for this kind of thing. Some
projects opted for a web page with no link back. Others simply said no.
Ross
Sent from my tablet
On Nov 22, 2012 1:00 AM, "Benson Margulies" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> It looks to me like we might be having some linguistic and cultural
> disconnection here.
>
> I'm not entirely sure, but this reads to like a situation that comes
> up in Europe from time to time, where academic funding comes with
> requirements for acknowledgement. This doesn't make it instantly
> legitimately here, but viewing this as a commercial enterprise
> demanding credit is perhaps not the most illuminating view. It is also
> possible that polite push-back to the academic partnership by the
> Foundation could yield a resolution.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
> this
> > work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That seems like
> the
> > person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache
> > contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there are
> > plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
> >> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
It looks to me like we might be having some linguistic and cultural
disconnection here.
I'm not entirely sure, but this reads to like a situation that comes
up in Europe from time to time, where academic funding comes with
requirements for acknowledgement. This doesn't make it instantly
legitimately here, but viewing this as a commercial enterprise
demanding credit is perhaps not the most illuminating view. It is also
possible that polite push-back to the academic partnership by the
Foundation could yield a resolution.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit this
> work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That seems like the
> person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache
> contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there are
> plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
>> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 22/11/2012 00:55, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit
> this work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That
> seems like the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit
> since Apache contribution is supposed to be on an individual level
> (although there are plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as
> personal initiative).
If "the person" is me and "the company" is SURF, I have already
commented in another reply that the work is about a feature already
planned into the roadmap by the community.
From my point of view, this means that SURF asking to commit this work
into the project's repository - instead of keeping it secret somewhere
else - is actually a good thing.
Do you still think I am crossing any wire? Can you please elaborate? Thanks.
Regards.
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <mllist@mvdb.net
> <ma...@mvdb.net>> wrote:
>
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the
> source repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit this
work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That seems like
the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache
contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there are
plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>wrote:
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 21/11/2012 23:49, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want
> this to happen at the ASF.
>
> Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also
> work on open source ?
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the
> source repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
> You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
> based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
> Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies
> in the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies
> without their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive
> the same treatment.
>
> It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based
> on incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these
> kind of things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I
> learned here more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just
> doesn't feel right.
Hi Martin,
I've just realized that there are few missing pieces in my mail below:
1. the feature we are talking about (Role Provisioning) was already
present in Syncope's roadmap [5] *before* any external engagement
2. I've created a separate branch for development purpose only, since
its scope is to be eventually merged into the trunk - as reported in
SYNCOPE-171 [6] (and explicitly requested by SURFnet, anyway)
3. This is my customer's customer request, not mine, and I am only
checking the compliance with ASF rules and principles; if this is not
feasible, I will just report to them
Having said that, I'd like to understand what "doesn't feel right" exactly:
a) the fact that someone is paying someone else to develop some code
for a feature in roadmap, and also requested such feature to be
contributed back to the original project instead of laying in some
private repository
b) the fact that they requested to report such fact into the project's
NOTICE file
If (b) - as I hope - do you think that things would have looked
differently if they would have asked me to develop the feature in a
private repository and then would have donated such code as a bundle (as
it seems to happen with Rave [2])?
Regards.
> 2012/11/21 Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>
>
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related
> to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the
> SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for
> Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more
> information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl <http://www.surf.nl>.
>
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ux6xpt332uoqfjdq
> [2]
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/donations/surfconext-portal/coin-portal/trunk/NOTICE
> [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
[5] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SYNCOPE/Roadmap
[6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SYNCOPE-171
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Presumably the company required that the person doing the work commit this
work or cause this work to be committed to the project. That seems like
the person agreeing to this is crossing their wires a bit since Apache
contribution is supposed to be on an individual level (although there are
plenty of examples of partisanship masquerading as personal initiative).
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>wrote:
> How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
> repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this to
happen at the ASF.
Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also work
on open source ?
How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
treatment.
It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
right.
Mvgr,
Martin
2012/11/21 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
>
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ux6xpt332uoqfjdq
> [2]
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/donations/surfconext-portal/coin-portal/trunk/NOTICE
> [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<il...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
A better way to say this would be "required to contribute the code to
Syncope". Requiring it to actually be a part of the official
repository is outside of your individual control (ie: the community
could disagree, someone else could delete it later etc). Requiring it
be in the codebase tries to turn Apache into a consultancy company.
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
You could view this as an Apache licensed work with a NOTICE file
containing the above that is being included in Syncope, rather than
coming in over the CLA. Alternatively, you have to identify any other
rights holders when contributing code under the ICLA (clause 7). It
sounds as though SURF are the rights holder for the work, so
identifying their copyright in the NOTICE is fair if desired.
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
The important item is that you've signed an ICLA and that you have the
permissions to contribute.
Text-wise, I think it's fine for the NOTICE to include something like:
"Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. "
We should police that for marketing speak. If it said: "The World's
greatest ICT", that would be bad. For example on the above - is SURF
the only one of these organizations, or should it be "a higher
education ... "? This raises the side question of a NOTICE file that
contains incorrect details :) "Portions Copyright Bob the Skull, the
lead Apache Rave committer".
I think the following shouldn't be included: "For more information
about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl. ". That's not valid to giving
NOTICE.
Community wise this gets interesting for us as it turns NOTICE files
into advertising locations and everyone will want to be listed for the
smallest of contributions ["Based on a bug report by the Yandell
Family, Inc."]. I think the answer is that it's meritocratic, anyone
contributing can ask to be listed, however we have to maintain
editorial control.
SURF can ask that they be called out in the NOTICE, and even propose
text but we determine the way in which we do that.
Hen
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Besides legal questions, I think the question is merely if we want this to
happen at the ASF.
Why aren't all other companies in there that are paying people to also work
on open source ?
How is possible that a company requires the ASF to put it in the source
repository. Isn't this a community decision ?
You actually made a specific branch to work on this code, which we can
based on the information I have see as a vendor branch ?
Why is this investment worth more than investments of other companies in
the various projects of the ASF. I can name a lot of companies without
their name in the NOTICE file which at least should receive the same
treatment.
It could be that my worry that a line is getting crossed here is based on
incorrect or incomplete information or that the spirit of these kind of
things have changed during my "inactivity". Based on what I learned here
more than 10 years ago from the "ASF veterans", this just doesn't feel
right.
Mvgr,
Martin
2012/11/21 Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
>
> They have also provided a previous reference [2] in Apache Rave, for
> which they have signed a corporate CLA [3] and software grant [4].
>
> Do you see any issue with this? Is this fine, provided that they sign
> another grant for Syncope?
>
> Thanks for your support.
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ux6xpt332uoqfjdq
> [2]
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/rave/donations/surfconext-portal/coin-portal/trunk/NOTICE
> [3] http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> [4] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> ASF Member, Apache Cocoon PMC and Apache Syncope PPMC Member
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Customer reference in NOTICE
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote on Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 16:26:58 +0100:
> Hi,
> in Syncope we have been discussing [1] about some aspects related to our
> NOTICE file and wed like to ask your opinion about this.
>
> A part of my current work for Syncope is actually paid by one of my
> customers that is actually financed in turn by SURFnet.
> They explicitly required that such code has to be part of the official
> Syncope repository and releases and are also asking to include in the
> NOTICE file the following extract:
>
Maybe include their text in the AUTHORS file, or in who-we-are.html (in
an "Affiliation" column?), etc.?
> Portions of this software are developed by the support of the SURF, the
> higher education and research partnership organization for Information and
> Communications Technology (ICT) in The Netherlands. For more information
> about SURF, please visit www.surf.nl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org