You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> on 2012/01/30 18:32:49 UTC
Questions for projects
Hi,
The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
I spent a few moments reviewing the November reports and related
information of all the projects scheduled to report in February
(excluding new projects on monthly schedule). Here are a few questions
or comments for each project. Hopefully they're helpful in focusing
the February reports on key issues.
> Airavata
Only point 3 in your last report is a real graduation issue. How
diverse is your community now?
What happened with the release candidate mentioned in the last report?
> Ambari
How has CTR worked for you?
I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
> 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"?
> Clerezza
Have you made a release yet? If not, what's the blocker?
Any other issues before graduation?
> DeltaSpike
How is the Git repository working for you?
> Droids
Any progress on getting more people to contribute?
I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
> HISE
Result of the retirement vote.
> Jena
When can I vote on your graduation?
> Lucene.NET
When can I vote on your graduation?
> NPanday
When can I vote on your graduation?
> Nuvem
I don't see too much activity in the last five months. What's up?
> OpenNLP
Congratulations on graduation!
> PhotArk
I notice the discussions about a new direction. What's next?
> SIS
Do you have a plan for reviving the project?
> Stanbol
Still no release?
Any other issues before graduation? Points 1b and 1c in your last
report are not blockers for graduation.
> VCL
What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
> Wink
Looks like you're discussing ideas to increase commit activity. Any
concrete actions you're taking on this?
> Wookie
What's blocking you from graduating?
How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
> Zeta Components
How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> VCL
>>
>> What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
>
> Brain freeze on my part. What issue are you speaking of?
>From the November report
(http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2011): "The main barrier
encountered is obtaining university legal department approval of
individual and corporate contributor license agreements."
>> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
>
> It's improving. A new committer was added a few weeks ago. I have
> reservations about the viability of the project without NCSU support. The
> PPMC is aware of the issue, is working on increasing the ranks, and
> reviews progress on a regular basis.
Sounds great, thanks!
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> VCL
>
> What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
Brain freeze on my part. What issue are you speaking of?
> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
It's improving. A new committer was added a few weeks ago. I have reservations about the viability of the project without NCSU support. The PPMC is aware of the issue, is working on increasing the ranks, and reviews progress on a regular basis.
Regards,
Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Richard Frovarp <rf...@apache.org> wrote:
> Did I miss the reminder? Or is it not working?
I suppose the reminder will go out tomorrow on the first day of the
month. I guess that's not too helpful given that the deadline is also
tomorrow.
>>> Droids
>>
>> Any progress on getting more people to contribute?
>>
>> I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
>
> No progress at the moment. We need to evaluate those that have contributed
> patches to bring in new blood.
OK, cool.
> I don't know the cause for drop in last activity. I think it just needs a
> reboot after the holidays.
Yep, could be just a blib. That happens to many projects every now and
then, especially after holidays.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Richard Frovarp <rf...@apache.org>.
On 01/30/2012 11:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
> in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
>
> I spent a few moments reviewing the November reports and related
> information of all the projects scheduled to report in February
> (excluding new projects on monthly schedule). Here are a few questions
> or comments for each project. Hopefully they're helpful in focusing
> the February reports on key issues.
Did I miss the reminder? Or is it not working?
>
>> Droids
> Any progress on getting more people to contribute?
>
> I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
>
No progress at the moment. We need to evaluate those that have
contributed patches to bring in new blood.
I don't know the cause for drop in last activity. I think it just needs
a reboot after the holidays.
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Richard Frovarp <rf...@apache.org>.
On 01/30/2012 11:32 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
> in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
>
> I spent a few moments reviewing the November reports and related
> information of all the projects scheduled to report in February
> (excluding new projects on monthly schedule). Here are a few questions
> or comments for each project. Hopefully they're helpful in focusing
> the February reports on key issues.
Did I miss the reminder? Or is it not working?
>
>> Droids
> Any progress on getting more people to contribute?
>
> I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
>
No progress at the moment. We need to evaluate those that have
contributed patches to bring in new blood.
I don't know the cause for drop in last activity. I think it just needs
a reboot after the holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what you currently do in the incubator is just an amazing job. I would
> have nominated you for serving as an incubator chair, but it seems
> another project has already got you. As I can not nominate you, I need
> to say that your work here is great. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind words!
Yes, I'm already chairing the Jackrabbit PMC and not interested in
taking on extra duties at the moment. And besides, one doesn't need to
be a PMC chair to invest some time in podling review and followup. :-)
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Questions for projects
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > I need to say that your [Jukka] work here is great. Thanks.
+1
> one doesn't need to be a PMC chair to invest some time in podling review and followup. :-)
:-)
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
Jukka,
what you currently do in the incubator is just an amazing job. I would
have nominated you for serving as an incubator chair, but it seems
another project has already got you. As I can not nominate you, I need
to say that your work here is great. Thanks.
Cheers
Christian
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
> in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
>
> I spent a few moments reviewing the November reports and related
> information of all the projects scheduled to report in February
> (excluding new projects on monthly schedule). Here are a few questions
> or comments for each project. Hopefully they're helpful in focusing
> the February reports on key issues.
>
>> Airavata
>
> Only point 3 in your last report is a real graduation issue. How
> diverse is your community now?
>
> What happened with the release candidate mentioned in the last report?
>
>> Ambari
>
> How has CTR worked for you?
>
> I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
>
>> 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"?
>
>> Clerezza
>
> Have you made a release yet? If not, what's the blocker?
>
> Any other issues before graduation?
>
>> DeltaSpike
>
> How is the Git repository working for you?
>
>> Droids
>
> Any progress on getting more people to contribute?
>
> I'm seeing a significant drop in list activity since December. What's up?
>
>> HISE
>
> Result of the retirement vote.
>
>> Jena
>
> When can I vote on your graduation?
>
>> Lucene.NET
>
> When can I vote on your graduation?
>
>> NPanday
>
> When can I vote on your graduation?
>
>> Nuvem
>
> I don't see too much activity in the last five months. What's up?
>
>> OpenNLP
>
> Congratulations on graduation!
>
>> PhotArk
>
> I notice the discussions about a new direction. What's next?
>
>> SIS
>
> Do you have a plan for reviving the project?
>
>> Stanbol
>
> Still no release?
>
> Any other issues before graduation? Points 1b and 1c in your last
> report are not blockers for graduation.
>
>> VCL
>
> What's the status with the issue of university approval of the CLAs?
>
> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
>
>> Wink
>
> Looks like you're discussing ideas to increase commit activity. Any
> concrete actions you're taking on this?
>
>> Wookie
>
> What's blocking you from graduating?
>
> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
>
>> Zeta Components
>
> How diverse is your currently active committer-base?
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
https://www.timeandbill.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 30/01/12 17:32, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Jena
> When can I vote on your graduation?
>
Jena's report is already signed off on the wiki: [*]
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012
"The project is discussing graduation.
....
Plan:
* Graduation preparation
(checking, drafting the scope/charter, resolution, chair, more checking)
* There are no technical or infrastructure items blocking graduation.
"""
Andy
[*] hey - we're early for once - long may it last!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
On Mar 13, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut,
>
> what is not clear to me how to think about possible solutions if we
> still haven't understood the entity of the problem.
>
I do agree with you. Problem here is that we have been stuck for a long while now on this issue and we really need to do something in order to move forward.
Regards
Antonio
> Thanks for leading the issue,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simone,
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi +,
>>>
>>> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
>>> suggestion?
>>
>> I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>>
>>> TIA!
>>> -Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi *,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>
>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut,
what is not clear to me how to think about possible solutions if we
still haven't understood the entity of the problem.
Thanks for leading the issue,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Simone,
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Hi +,
>>
>> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
>> suggestion?
>
> I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>>
>> TIA!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>
>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi +,
>
> which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
> suggestion?
I think I have tried to cover this in the other mail thread "Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]"
Regards
Antonio
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi *,
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>
>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>> take some drastic action.
>>
>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>
>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>
>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi +,
which alternative and drastic action you have in mind? Do you have any
suggestion?
TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>
>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>> take some drastic action.
>
> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>
> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>
>>>> Hi *
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>
>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>
>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>> to general@)?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Wow, thank you very much Antonio for this huge effort!
I'll read and try to re-understand what happened.
Have a nice day,
Tommaso
2012/3/15 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> Hi all,
> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been
> dug further the mailing list.
> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can
> use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did
> anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
>
> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>
>
> [0]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [3]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [4]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [5]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [6]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [7]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
> > Hi Simone
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >
> >> Salut a tout le monde,
> >>
> >> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
> >> codebase was accepted?
> >> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
> >> me if I am wrong!
> >>
> >> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> >> SoftwareGrant,
> >
> > after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about
> that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
> > Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to
> collect any information on any document that has been signed,
> > in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antonio
> >
> >
> > [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
> >
>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
apologies something got messed up with previous email response template (making the mail hard to read). I try again :)
Hi Raymond
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Antonio.
>
> Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
>
> So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
IIUC correctly yes.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
>> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
if there is not anything in progress with legal@ I might volunteer to start this thread. Or is there anybody with more legal/process knowledge that wants to do it?
Regards
Antonio
>>
>> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
>> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
>> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
>> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
>> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
>> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
>> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
>> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
>> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>>
>>
>> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> [7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Simone
>>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>>>
>>>> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
>>>> codebase was accepted?
>>>> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
>>>> me if I am wrong!
>>>>
>>>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>>>> SoftwareGrant,
>>>
>>> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
>>> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
>>> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Raymond
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi, Antonio.
Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
IIUC correctly yes.
" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
if there is not anything in progress with legal@ I might volunteer to start this thread. Or is there anybody with more legal/process knowledge that wants to do it?
Regards
Antonio
10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
[0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
Regards
Antonio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
Hi Simone
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Salut a tout le monde,
didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
codebase was accepted?
IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
me if I am wrong!
As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
SoftwareGrant,
after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
WDYT?
Regards
Antonio
[0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Antonio.
Thank you for putting together a nice timeline :-).
So basically, we are stuck at the IP clearance: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/amber-leeloo.html, right?
Thanks,
Raymond
On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi all,
> to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
> I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
>
> 10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
> 11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
> 11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
> 12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
> 12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
> 12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
> 07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
> 09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
> 01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
>
>
> [0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> [7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
>
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
> On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi Simone
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>
>>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>>
>>> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
>>> codebase was accepted?
>>> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
>>> me if I am wrong!
>>>
>>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>>> SoftwareGrant,
>>
>> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
>> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
>> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi all,
to better understand the Leeloo/Newcastle University IP issue I have been dug further the mailing list.
I have thought to share with you my little "chronological report" we can use in order to prepare something consistent to ask to legal@ (btw did anybody tried to do that for this issue already?):
10/10 First mention of Leeloo [0]
11/10 Introduction of Leeloo to Amber list [1]
11/10 Moving Leeloo code to Apache repository [2]
12/10 Maciej/Lukasz signed ICLA [3]
12/10 IP clearance for Leeloo contribution [4]
12/10 AMBER-11/AMBER-12 Leelo donation
07/11 IP clearance and first release [5]
09/11 Waiting from reply from the University [6]
01/12 ASF license and copyrights [7]
[0] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201010.mbox/%3C4CA5A544.3040407%40pidster.com%3E
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTi%3DEp6Df48aFZdB%2BmokAp6HO7-ncmoVdjELKnzwz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201011.mbox/%3CAANLkTik3xt1H7nOaVGWPUSY9MrkKTPymffd%2BHT7r421A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikCGKnQkGj7wuHnFWoju%3DxbrO0%3DDMYWjkHfS%3DCK%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201012.mbox/%3CAANLkTikHhU9gQKAJPtVfXOTrWJQM-XiTkSkBhQpWJfiz%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201107.mbox/%3CCAPz8h_XGY5gpMCqVyBxYBJ%2Bg%3DuDCgj-VPttNoKyEb5H4K7JR1w%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201109.mbox/%3CCA%2Bc2x_U%3DdtA9UpzpsvbrtNVypcqXEvvq6O8TEGY5D_bLm7ZXRQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
[7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-amber-dev/201201.mbox/%3C4938690A-22C7-4677-8361-735D9A7E939D%40yahoo.com%3E
Regards
Antonio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:39 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi Simone
>
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>
>> Salut a tout le monde,
>>
>> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
>> codebase was accepted?
>> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
>> me if I am wrong!
>>
>> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
>> SoftwareGrant,
>
> after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
> Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
> in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
> [0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut a tout le monde,
>
> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
> codebase was accepted?
> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
> me if I am wrong!
>
> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> SoftwareGrant,
after digging a bit on the mailing list history I am not too sure about that (namely that software grant has been signed). See also [0]
Now as a next step, and here I'd ask the help of all, we'd need to collect any information on any document that has been signed,
in order to have something specific and precise to ask to legal@
WDYT?
Regards
Antonio
[0] http://amber.markmail.org/message/e6rhs3tbsydal7i4
> so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
> oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(
>
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
>
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Raymond
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Antonio.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
>>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> yes, that's correct.
>> Tommaso
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>
>>>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
>>>>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>>>>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>>>>
>>>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
>>>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Simone,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Salut a tout le monde,
>
> didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
> codebase was accepted?
> IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
> me if I am wrong!
>
> As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
> SoftwareGrant, so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
> oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(
as said IANAL and I am a bit lost as well :S.
I am just a bit concern since this IP clearance issue comes out every time we try to talk about next release plan or graduation plan.
So mine is just an attempt to better understand the situation and try to move bit forward :)
Should I have said something incorrect legally/process wise I do apologize :)
Regards
Antonio
>
> NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
>
> TIA all, have a nice day,
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
> <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Raymond
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Antonio.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>>>
>>>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
>>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> yes, that's correct.
>> Tommaso
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>
>>>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
>>>>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>>>>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>>>>
>>>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
>>>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Salut a tout le monde,
didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
codebase was accepted?
IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
me if I am wrong!
As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
SoftwareGrant, so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(
NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?
TIA all, have a nice day,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
<to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Raymond
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Antonio.
>>>
>>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>>
>>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>>
>>
>> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> yes, that's correct.
> Tommaso
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi *,
>>>>
>>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
>>>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>>>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>>>
>>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>>>
>>>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
>>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>
>>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
> Hi Raymond
>
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
>> Hi, Antonio.
>>
>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>
>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>
>
> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
yes, that's correct.
Tommaso
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
>>
>> Raymond
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
>>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>>
>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>>
>>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>>>
>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi *,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>
>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Raymond
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Antonio.
>
> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>
> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards
Antonio
>
> Raymond
>
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi *,
>>
>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>
>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>
>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>>
>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi *,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>
>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>
>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>
>>
>
Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Raymond Feng <cy...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Antonio.
Thank you for driving the efforts.
Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source was from Univ. of Newcastle?
Raymond
On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>
> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>
> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
>
> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>
>> Hi *,
>>
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>
>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>> take some drastic action.
>>
>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>
>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>
>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>
>
Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi *,
as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue.
My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
- I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example.
AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe".
Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac .
WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
Regards
Antonio
[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Hi *,
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>
>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>> take some drastic action.
>
> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
>
> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>
>>>> Hi *
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>
>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>
>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>> to general@)?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi *,
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>
> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
> take some drastic action.
not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to reconsider what Pid has said.
WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
Regards
Antonio
>
>
> p
>
>
>
>> Tommaso
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>
>>> Hi *
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Amber
>>>>
>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>
>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>
>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>> to general@)?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Antonio
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
2012/3/6 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> Hi Maciej,
>
> thanks a lot for the update.
> As noticed as well from you this IP clearance issue seems to be a pretty
> "big deal" for the project.
> IANAL but I think it would block our first release if we can not solve it.
> And consequently this would block our potential graduation plan.
> For this reason it would be nice to have a clear picture of the current
> situation and also from the past.
> Just to be clear my intention is only to understand and trying to move
> forward. If any of my questions would look inquisitive or "rude" I do
> apologize in advance.
> As long as I understood Leeloo was a project started under the umbrella of
> the Newcastle University.
> At a certain point you guys decided to donate to the ASF.
> Did the Newcastle University agreed at that point? If yes, does still
> agree now? If yes, :) what is the real blocker/issue? Is it more a formal
> issue?
> Is there any way we (project members/mentors) can help speed the process?
>
> Thanks a lot for your effort on it and regards
>
Thanks to you Antonio as I do have the same the concerns about this topic.
Looking forward to have a clearer view.
Tommaso
>
> Antonio
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>
> > I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
> > Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
> > I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
> > issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
> > projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
> > on that issue and if we can move forward.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Maciej
> >
> > On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Maciej,
> >>
> >> sorry to bother you again on it.
> >> But do you have any update ?
> >> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would
> be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Antonio
> >>
> >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
> >>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
> >>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
> >>>
> >>> Maciej
> >>>
> >>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code
> grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
> >>>>
> >>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz
> who
> >>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with
> their code.
> >>>>
> >>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
> >>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
> >>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> p
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Raymond
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Pid,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think
> directions/actions
> >>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made
> and
> >>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking
> to
> >>>>>> the relevant people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> p
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tommaso
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <
> tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to
> do that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I
> say it,
> >>>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have
> to
> >>>>>>>> take some drastic action.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> p
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tommaso
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi *
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last
> report?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
> >>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka
> (mail sent
> >>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Antonio
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [key:62590808]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> [key:62590808]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Maciej Machulak
> >>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> >>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Maciej Machulak
> > email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> > cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Maciej,
thanks a lot for the update.
As noticed as well from you this IP clearance issue seems to be a pretty "big deal" for the project.
IANAL but I think it would block our first release if we can not solve it. And consequently this would block our potential graduation plan.
For this reason it would be nice to have a clear picture of the current situation and also from the past.
Just to be clear my intention is only to understand and trying to move forward. If any of my questions would look inquisitive or "rude" I do apologize in advance.
As long as I understood Leeloo was a project started under the umbrella of the Newcastle University.
At a certain point you guys decided to donate to the ASF.
Did the Newcastle University agreed at that point? If yes, does still agree now? If yes, :) what is the real blocker/issue? Is it more a formal issue?
Is there any way we (project members/mentors) can help speed the process?
Thanks a lot for your effort on it and regards
Antonio
On Mar 2, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
> Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
> I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
> issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
> projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
> on that issue and if we can move forward.
>
> Cheers,
> Maciej
>
> On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi Maciej,
>>
>> sorry to bother you again on it.
>> But do you have any update ?
>> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
>>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
>>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>>>
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>>>
>>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>>>
>>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>>>
>>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Raymond
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Maciej Machulak
>>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
>>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maciej Machulak
> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Maciej Machulak <ma...@gmail.com>.
I've sent emails to various departments at my Uni and included OSS
Watch to help. Since I've been in USA for some time now, unfortunately
I cannot go and knock on people's doors directly. I see it's a huge
issue and it's a total waste of the code that some other (Apache)
projects cannot use it. I will do my best to see if there's any update
on that issue and if we can move forward.
Cheers,
Maciej
On 2 March 2012 05:48, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
> sorry to bother you again on it.
> But do you have any update ?
> I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
>
> Thanks
>
> Antonio
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
>> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
>> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>>
>> Maciej
>>
>> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>>
>>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>>
>>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>>
>>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>>
>>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Raymond
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [key:62590808]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maciej Machulak
>> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
>> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
>
--
Maciej Machulak
email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Maciej,
sorry to bother you again on it.
But do you have any update ?
I thinks is really time to seriously think about a release and it would be nice to hear that also this topic is moving forward.
Thanks
Antonio
On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:13 AM, Maciej Machulak wrote:
> Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
> grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
> keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
>
> Maciej
>
> On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>>
>> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>>
>> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
>> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>>
>> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
>> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>>
>> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
>> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>>
>>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>>> the relevant people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> [key:62590808]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Maciej Machulak
> email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
> cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Maciej Machulak <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes, that's the correct story. AFAIK there's some progress with the
grant at the Uni. I've been told it might be issued shortly :-) I'll
keep bugging them until the grant is issued, no worries ;)
Maciej
On 31 January 2012 15:10, Pid <pi...@pidster.com> wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
>
> Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
>
> An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
> work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
>
> That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
> Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
>
> Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
> to complete the grant, without success so far.
>
>
> p
>
>> Thanks,
>> Raymond
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>>> Hi Pid,
>>>>
>>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>>
>>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>>
>>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>>> the relevant people.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> p
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> [key:62590808]
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>
--
Maciej Machulak
email: maciej.machulak@gmail.com
cell: +1 650 468 1528 (US)
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31/01/2012 22:52, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
Short version, (correct me if I'm wrong someone):
An OAuth 2.0 project, LeeLoo, was being developed by Maciej & Lukasz who
work at Newcastle Uni. We invited them to join the project with their code.
That code was committed to the repo before a grant was provided by
Newcastle Uni, whose copyright is on the code.
Maciej & Lukasz have been trying to get the Newcastle Uni legal people
to complete the grant, without success so far.
p
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>>> Hi Pid,
>>>
>>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>>> from our mentors are needed here.
>>
>> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>>
>> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
>> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
>> the relevant people.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>>
>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> p
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Can somebody familiar with the project history summarize the code grant issue? It will help us new folks get the context of the discussion.
Thanks,
Raymond
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Pid wrote:
> On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
>> Hi Pid,
>>
>> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
>> from our mentors are needed here.
>
> I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
>
> All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
> if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
> the relevant people.
>
>
> p
>
>> Tommaso
>>
>> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>>
>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>>
>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>>> take some drastic action.
>>>
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tommaso
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>
>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31/01/2012 15:50, Tommaso Teofili wrote:
> Hi Pid,
>
> Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
> from our mentors are needed here.
I mean that if we can't get a grant, we'll have to ditch the code.
All the same, I would like to hear what progress the guys have made and
if there's anything any of us can do to assist - perhaps by talking to
the relevant people.
p
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
>
>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>>
>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
>> take some drastic action.
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tommaso
>>>
>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>>>
>>>> Hi *
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>
>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>
>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>>>> to general@)?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>
>
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Hi Pid,
Personally I can't help on the legal issues, I think directions/actions
from our mentors are needed here.
Tommaso
2012/1/31 Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>
> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
>
> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
> take some drastic action.
>
>
> p
>
>
>
> > Tommaso
> >
> > 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> >
> >> Hi *
> >>
> >> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Amber
> >>>
> >>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
> >>>
> >>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
> >>> University of Newcastle"?
> >>
> >> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
> >> to general@)?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Antonio
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Pid * <pi...@pidster.com>.
On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it,
but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to
take some drastic action.
p
> Tommaso
>
> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
>
>> Hi *
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>>>> Amber
>>>
>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>>>
>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>
>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
>> to general@)?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Tommaso Teofili <to...@gmail.com>.
Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that.
Tommaso
2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>
> Hi *
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> >> Amber
> >
> > Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
> >
> > What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
> > University of Newcastle"?
>
> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent
> to general@)?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi *
On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Amber
>
> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report?
>
> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from
> University of Newcastle"?
is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent to general@)?
Regards
Antonio
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Daniel Spicar <ds...@apache.org>.
Hi Luciano,
The February page is here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012
Best,
Daniel
On 31 January 2012 19:17, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
> > in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
> >
>
> Sure, but there isn't even a February page at the wiki :
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
>
> Should one just copy from Feb 2011 ? Or is there some template that I
> missed ?
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 31 Jan 2012, at 18:17, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
>> in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
>>
>
> Sure, but there isn't even a February page at the wiki :
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
>
> Should one just copy from Feb 2011 ? Or is there some template that I missed ?
Its there, it just hasn't got a link from the front page:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Questions for projects
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The deadline for podlings to submit their February reports is already
> in two days since the ASF board meeting is scheduled for Feb 15th.
>
Sure, but there isn't even a February page at the wiki :
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
Should one just copy from Feb 2011 ? Or is there some template that I missed ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org