You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> on 2012/01/16 20:49:05 UTC
DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
have been taking the position that we still need some form of
assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
(with options shown in order of difficulty):
What do we need to show provenance?
a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
employer is "on board."
c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
cherry-pick from it.
e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
f. Something else, namely _____.
Thanks,
Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
[2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why
>> clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes
>> here.* My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception
>> of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude
>> "code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
>> public mailing lists" to quote from
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html . Am I on the
>> right track here?
>
> Point them to clause 5. But perhaps a phone call is in order? I am
> likely in the same timezone as the RH counsel, in fact, I may even be
> in the same city.
>
I am told he is in EST. I am in CST (no idea whether my participation
would actually be beneficial, but so far I've been the primary point
of contact between the incubator and Red Hat counsel on this). I will
refer them to clause 5, make my usual halting attempt to explain what
I think you're saying it's saying, and tell them you are willing to
have the call if it would be helpful.
Thanks, Sam!
Matt
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>> * for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be
>> cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software
>> grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim
>> each commit as clause 7 would do.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
>>>> talking about the same.
>>>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
>>>> handle it via a software grant.
>>>>
>>>> @matt:
>>>> it would be great if you can contact them again.
>>>
>>> Done, copying deltaspike-private.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @sam:
>>>> thx for your help
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in general - fyi:
>>>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>>>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>>>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>>>>> discussion and the release votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> gerhard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>>>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>>>>> file
>>>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>>>>> A
>>>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>>>>> company
>>>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>>>>> grant
>>>>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I concur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>>>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>>>>> problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why
> clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes
> here.* My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception
> of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude
> "code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
> public mailing lists" to quote from
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html . Am I on the
> right track here?
Point them to clause 5. But perhaps a phone call is in order? I am
likely in the same timezone as the RH counsel, in fact, I may even be
in the same city.
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> * for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be
> cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software
> grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim
> each commit as clause 7 would do.
- Sam Ruby
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
>>> talking about the same.
>>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
>>> handle it via a software grant.
>>>
>>> @matt:
>>> it would be great if you can contact them again.
>>
>> Done, copying deltaspike-private.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>>
>>> @sam:
>>> thx for your help
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>> in general - fyi:
>>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>>>> discussion and the release votes.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>>>> file
>>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>>>> A
>>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>>>> company
>>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>>>> being
>>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>>>> the
>>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>>>> grant
>>>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I concur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>>>> problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why
clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes
here.* My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception
of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude
"code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
public mailing lists" to quote from
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html . Am I on the
right track here?
Thanks,
Matt
* for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be
cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software
grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim
each commit as clause 7 would do.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
>> talking about the same.
>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
>> handle it via a software grant.
>>
>> @matt:
>> it would be great if you can contact them again.
>
> Done, copying deltaspike-private.
>
> Matt
>
>>
>> @sam:
>> thx for your help
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> in general - fyi:
>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>>> discussion and the release votes.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>>> file
>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>>> A
>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>>> company
>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>>> being
>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>>> the
>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>>> grant
>>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I concur.
>>>>
>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
We have another question on this topic... RH counsel wants to know why
clause 4 rather than clause 7 of the ICLA doesn't serve our purposes
here.* My inexpert answer would be that the ICLA, with the exception
of clause 7, deals with "original" works, which is intended to exclude
"code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our
public mailing lists" to quote from
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html . Am I on the
right track here?
Thanks,
Matt
* for context, we are speaking about bits and pieces that will be
cherry-picked from the Solder and Seam 3 codebases; thus a software
grant is a bit of overkill, but saves committers having to disclaim
each commit as clause 7 would do.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
>> talking about the same.
>> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
>> handle it via a software grant.
>>
>> @matt:
>> it would be great if you can contact them again.
>
> Done, copying deltaspike-private.
>
> Matt
>
>>
>> @sam:
>> thx for your help
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> in general - fyi:
>>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>>> discussion and the release votes.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> gerhard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>>> file
>>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>>> A
>>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>>> company
>>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>>> being
>>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>>> the
>>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>>> grant
>>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I concur.
>>>>
>>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>>> problem?
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
> talking about the same.
> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
> handle it via a software grant.
>
> @matt:
> it would be great if you can contact them again.
Done, copying deltaspike-private.
Matt
>
> @sam:
> thx for your help
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>
>> hi,
>>
>> in general - fyi:
>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>> discussion and the release votes.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>> file
>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>> A
>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>> company
>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>> being
>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>> the
>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>> grant
>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>
>>> I concur.
>>>
>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>> problem?
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
Adding deltaspike-dev back to the distribution:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org> wrote:
> ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
> talking about the same.
> it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
> handle it via a software grant.
>
> @matt:
> it would be great if you can contact them again.
Done, copying deltaspike-private.
Matt
>
> @sam:
> thx for your help
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
>
>> hi,
>>
>> in general - fyi:
>> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
>> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
>> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
>> discussion and the release votes.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>>> file
>>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>>> A
>>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>>> company
>>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>>> being
>>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>>> the
>>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>>> grant
>>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>>
>>> I concur.
>>>
>>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>>> problem?
>>>
>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
ok - matt and i just had a short talk with sam to ensure that we are
talking about the same.
it isn't the only way, but to resolve it once and for all it's easier to
handle it via a software grant.
@matt:
it would be great if you can contact them again.
@sam:
thx for your help
regards,
gerhard
2012/1/17 Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>
> hi,
>
> in general - fyi:
> we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
> one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
> have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
> discussion and the release votes.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
>
> 2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
>> file
>> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
>> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
>> A
>> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
>> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
>> company
>> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
>> being
>> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
>> the
>> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
>> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
>> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
>> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software
>> grant
>> > is typically the best way to do it.
>>
>> I concur.
>>
>> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
>> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
>> Grant would be appreciated.
>>
>> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
>> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
>> problem?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
hi,
in general - fyi:
we don't have a huge import. we discuss single features and if we agree on
one, one of the members (of the original project) commits it. all authors
have their icla on file, joined the project and participate in the
discussion and the release votes.
regards,
gerhard
2012/1/17 Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on
> file
> > to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
> > software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF.
> A
> > CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
> > permission to use specific software created by the company. If the
> company
> > is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is
> being
> > contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving
> the
> > contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
> > would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
> > their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
> > from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant
> > is typically the best way to do it.
>
> I concur.
>
> Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
> (Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
> Grant would be appreciated.
>
> If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
> indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
> problem?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on file
> to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
> software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF. A
> CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
> permission to use specific software created by the company. If the company
> is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is being
> contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving the
> contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
> would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
> their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
> from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant
> is typically the best way to do it.
I concur.
Either an (additional|updated) CCLA with a concurrent software grant
(Schedule B) for the code in question -or- simply a separate Software
Grant would be appreciated.
If RedHat is on board with this (and everything in this conversations
indicated that that is indeed the case), then that shouldn't be a
problem?
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by "ralph.goers @dslextreme.com" <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I didn't mention CCLA's on purpose. A corporation will have a CCLA on file
to either a) declare that certain employees are permitted to contribute
software or b) declare that certain software is contributed to the ASF. A
CCLA that is on file that only includes Schedule A doesn't grant the ASF
permission to use specific software created by the company. If the company
is donating the software they need to specify it. If the software is being
contributed via an ICLA then the CCLA simply says the company is giving the
contributor the right to contribute software that normally the company
would own. However, an individual should never contribute software under
their ICLA that they didn't author, unless they have explicit permission
from the other authors. For a "significant" contribution a software grant
is typically the best way to do it.
See http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html. The Maven project
has had several contributions over the years that were authored by
individuals who had ICLAs on file but were originally done for their
employer. In the specific case of the Maven Indexer you will find that a
CCLA was used to donate that. It had both a Schedule A to name the
individuals who created it and a Schedule B to name the software being
donated.
Ralph
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
> <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > Sorry for jumping in in the middle.
> >
> > Code contributed to Apache must be under some form of an agreement. If
> the
> > code was authored by an individual and that individual has an ICLA on
> file
> > then they can contribute the software under their ICLA. If a group of
> > developers developed something and all have ICLAs on file and want to
> > contribute it, I believe it would be acceptable but still should have a
> > Software Grant to identify all the individuals and the fact that they
> were
> > all under an ICLA. If a group of developers created something for their
> > employer and they don't have ICLAs on file then the employer needs to
> > submit a software grant.
> >
> > From the facts below it sounds like a software grant should be filed.
>
> Hi, Ralph--thanks for your participation! For much of DeltaSpike's IP
> going forward, the situation will very likely be as you have stated.
> However, in this case, I notice you didn't mention Red Hat's CCLA. We
> have stated assurances from Red Hat counsel and management on
> deltaspike-private to the effect that they are on board, in addition
> to the link to the very public affirmation of this fact provided by
> Gerhard. These would seem to indicate satisfactorily that Red Hat's
> CCLA does cover these contributions, and I am therefore intending to
> call the matter of Red Hat's contributions to DeltaSpike closed.
>
> Thanks again,
> Matt
>
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek <gpetracek@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> hi matt,
> >>
> >> imo we have to care about it in case of other external contributions we
> are
> >> going to get quite soon.
> >>
> >> however, in case of seam3 i don't see any issue at all.
> >> #1 redhat has a ccla on file
> >> #2 they contacted us [1] to join forces (and they found out that the
> asf is
> >> also a great place for them to do so) and they announced it as well [2]
> >> #3 their employees who wrote the original source-code do the initial
> import
> >> after we agreed on it from a technical point of view
> >> #4 basically there isn't a license issue at all, because the
> source-code is
> >> AL v2 licensed already (@our higher quality standard: see #1-#3)
> >>
> >> if we think that #1-#4 isn't enough, imo it's faster to ask redhat to
> write
> >> a formal letter that they grant us access explicitly.
> >>
> >> for sure that's just my personal opinion.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >> [1] http://goo.gl/u3ewl
> >> [2] http://planet.jboss.org/post/seam_next_announcement
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/1/16 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
> >> > are also ALv2 licensed.
> >> >
> >> > Matt
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> >> > > to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal
> team
> >> > > about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
> >> > >
> >> > > The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> >> > > DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> >> > > the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> >> > > Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> >> > > sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> >> > > due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature
> overlap,
> >> > > it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under
> software
> >> > > grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which
> Red
> >> > > Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat,
> but I
> >> > > have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> >> > > assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the
> Solder
> >> > > and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> >> > > DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> >> > > (with options shown in order of difficulty):
> >> > >
> >> > > What do we need to show provenance?
> >> > > a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> >> > > b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> >> > > employer is "on board."
> >> > > c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> >> > > employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> >> > > d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> >> > > cherry-pick from it.
> >> > > e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> >> > > f. Something else, namely _____.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
> >> > >
> >> > > [1]
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> >> > > [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
> >> >
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Sorry for jumping in in the middle.
>
> Code contributed to Apache must be under some form of an agreement. If the
> code was authored by an individual and that individual has an ICLA on file
> then they can contribute the software under their ICLA. If a group of
> developers developed something and all have ICLAs on file and want to
> contribute it, I believe it would be acceptable but still should have a
> Software Grant to identify all the individuals and the fact that they were
> all under an ICLA. If a group of developers created something for their
> employer and they don't have ICLAs on file then the employer needs to
> submit a software grant.
>
> From the facts below it sounds like a software grant should be filed.
Hi, Ralph--thanks for your participation! For much of DeltaSpike's IP
going forward, the situation will very likely be as you have stated.
However, in this case, I notice you didn't mention Red Hat's CCLA. We
have stated assurances from Red Hat counsel and management on
deltaspike-private to the effect that they are on board, in addition
to the link to the very public affirmation of this fact provided by
Gerhard. These would seem to indicate satisfactorily that Red Hat's
CCLA does cover these contributions, and I am therefore intending to
call the matter of Red Hat's contributions to DeltaSpike closed.
Thanks again,
Matt
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> hi matt,
>>
>> imo we have to care about it in case of other external contributions we are
>> going to get quite soon.
>>
>> however, in case of seam3 i don't see any issue at all.
>> #1 redhat has a ccla on file
>> #2 they contacted us [1] to join forces (and they found out that the asf is
>> also a great place for them to do so) and they announced it as well [2]
>> #3 their employees who wrote the original source-code do the initial import
>> after we agreed on it from a technical point of view
>> #4 basically there isn't a license issue at all, because the source-code is
>> AL v2 licensed already (@our higher quality standard: see #1-#3)
>>
>> if we think that #1-#4 isn't enough, imo it's faster to ask redhat to write
>> a formal letter that they grant us access explicitly.
>>
>> for sure that's just my personal opinion.
>>
>> regards,
>> gerhard
>>
>> [1] http://goo.gl/u3ewl
>> [2] http://planet.jboss.org/post/seam_next_announcement
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/16 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
>> > are also ALv2 licensed.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
>> > > to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
>> > > about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
>> > >
>> > > The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
>> > > DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
>> > > the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
>> > > Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
>> > > sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
>> > > due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
>> > > it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
>> > > grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
>> > > Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
>> > > have been taking the position that we still need some form of
>> > > assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
>> > > and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
>> > > DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
>> > > (with options shown in order of difficulty):
>> > >
>> > > What do we need to show provenance?
>> > > a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
>> > > b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
>> > > employer is "on board."
>> > > c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
>> > > employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
>> > > d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
>> > > cherry-pick from it.
>> > > e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
>> > > f. Something else, namely _____.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
>> > > [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
>> >
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by "ralph.goers @dslextreme.com" <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Sorry for jumping in in the middle.
Code contributed to Apache must be under some form of an agreement. If the
code was authored by an individual and that individual has an ICLA on file
then they can contribute the software under their ICLA. If a group of
developers developed something and all have ICLAs on file and want to
contribute it, I believe it would be acceptable but still should have a
Software Grant to identify all the individuals and the fact that they were
all under an ICLA. If a group of developers created something for their
employer and they don't have ICLAs on file then the employer needs to
submit a software grant.
>From the facts below it sounds like a software grant should be filed.
Ralph
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>wrote:
> hi matt,
>
> imo we have to care about it in case of other external contributions we are
> going to get quite soon.
>
> however, in case of seam3 i don't see any issue at all.
> #1 redhat has a ccla on file
> #2 they contacted us [1] to join forces (and they found out that the asf is
> also a great place for them to do so) and they announced it as well [2]
> #3 their employees who wrote the original source-code do the initial import
> after we agreed on it from a technical point of view
> #4 basically there isn't a license issue at all, because the source-code is
> AL v2 licensed already (@our higher quality standard: see #1-#3)
>
> if we think that #1-#4 isn't enough, imo it's faster to ask redhat to write
> a formal letter that they grant us access explicitly.
>
> for sure that's just my personal opinion.
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
> [1] http://goo.gl/u3ewl
> [2] http://planet.jboss.org/post/seam_next_announcement
>
>
>
> 2012/1/16 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>
> > It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
> > are also ALv2 licensed.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> > > to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
> > > about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
> > >
> > > The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> > > DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> > > the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> > > Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> > > sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> > > due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
> > > it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
> > > grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
> > > Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
> > > have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> > > assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
> > > and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> > > DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> > > (with options shown in order of difficulty):
> > >
> > > What do we need to show provenance?
> > > a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> > > b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> > > employer is "on board."
> > > c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> > > employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> > > d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> > > cherry-pick from it.
> > > e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> > > f. Something else, namely _____.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
> > >
> > > [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> > > [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
> >
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
hi matt,
imo we have to care about it in case of other external contributions we are
going to get quite soon.
however, in case of seam3 i don't see any issue at all.
#1 redhat has a ccla on file
#2 they contacted us [1] to join forces (and they found out that the asf is
also a great place for them to do so) and they announced it as well [2]
#3 their employees who wrote the original source-code do the initial import
after we agreed on it from a technical point of view
#4 basically there isn't a license issue at all, because the source-code is
AL v2 licensed already (@our higher quality standard: see #1-#3)
if we think that #1-#4 isn't enough, imo it's faster to ask redhat to write
a formal letter that they grant us access explicitly.
for sure that's just my personal opinion.
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://goo.gl/u3ewl
[2] http://planet.jboss.org/post/seam_next_announcement
2012/1/16 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
> are also ALv2 licensed.
>
> Matt
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> > to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
> > about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
> >
> > The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> > DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> > the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> > Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> > sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> > due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
> > it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
> > grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
> > Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
> > have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> > assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
> > and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> > DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> > (with options shown in order of difficulty):
> >
> > What do we need to show provenance?
> > a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> > b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> > employer is "on board."
> > c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> > employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> > d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> > cherry-pick from it.
> > e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> > f. Something else, namely _____.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
> >
> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> > [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <gp...@apache.org>.
hi matt,
imo we have to care about it in case of other external contributions we are
going to get quite soon.
however, in case of seam3 i don't see any issue at all.
#1 redhat has a ccla on file
#2 they contacted us [1] to join forces (and they found out that the asf is
also a great place for them to do so) and they announced it as well [2]
#3 their employees who wrote the original source-code do the initial import
after we agreed on it from a technical point of view
#4 basically there isn't a license issue at all, because the source-code is
AL v2 licensed already (@our higher quality standard: see #1-#3)
if we think that #1-#4 isn't enough, imo it's faster to ask redhat to write
a formal letter that they grant us access explicitly.
for sure that's just my personal opinion.
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://goo.gl/u3ewl
[2] http://planet.jboss.org/post/seam_next_announcement
2012/1/16 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
> are also ALv2 licensed.
>
> Matt
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> > to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
> > about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
> >
> > The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> > DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> > the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> > Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> > sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> > due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
> > it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
> > grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
> > Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
> > have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> > assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
> > and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> > DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> > (with options shown in order of difficulty):
> >
> > What do we need to show provenance?
> > a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> > b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> > employer is "on board."
> > c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> > employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> > d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> > cherry-pick from it.
> > e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> > f. Something else, namely _____.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
> >
> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> > [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
>
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
are also ALv2 licensed.
Matt
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
> about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
>
> The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
> it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
> grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
> Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
> have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
> and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> (with options shown in order of difficulty):
>
> What do we need to show provenance?
> a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> employer is "on board."
> c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> cherry-pick from it.
> e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> f. Something else, namely _____.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
Re: DeltaSpike IP clarifications
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
It may also be pertinent to note that the codebases here in question
are also ALv2 licensed.
Matt
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi, all--per [1], "Generally, the mentors of a new project will need
> to consult with general@incubator.apache.org or the Apache legal team
> about the particular circumstances." So, here I am.
>
> The situation can be read in detail at [2], but in short is this:
> DeltaSpike is intended to amalgamate "best of" add-on solutions from
> the Java EE community with regard to the "Contexts and Dependency
> Injection for the Java EE platform" (CDI) specification. Thus its
> sources may incorporate code originating from numerous sources, but
> due to a number of reasons including e.g. anticipated feature overlap,
> it does not seem appropriate to include whole codebases under software
> grants. The specific question at the moment regards code to which Red
> Hat holds the copyright. The ASF has a filed CCLA from Red Hat, but I
> have been taking the position that we still need some form of
> assurance that code relating to CDI (primarily embodied in the Solder
> and Seam) projects is *specifically* approved for contribution to
> DeltaSpike. I'll present the basic question in multiple-choice form
> (with options shown in order of difficulty):
>
> What do we need to show provenance?
> a. Nothing. Stop being so damned paranoid. The CCLA is enough.
> b. DeltaSpike's Red Hat-employed committers' assurance that their
> employer is "on board."
> c. A signed statement from Red Hat to the effect that their
> employees are authorized to contribute CDI-related code.
> d. A software grant for any codebase, even if we only intend to
> cherry-pick from it.
> e. Jim Whitehurst's eternal soul.
> f. Something else, namely _____.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt on behalf of DeltaSpike
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance
> [2] http://markmail.org/thread/g65yi42mdzvq5bu2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org