Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...It is simply a clone of this:
> https://github.com/fnk/w3c-ddr ...

You cannot simply "clone" random code to an Apache project repository.
Apache only accepts voluntary contributions, and the iCLA that you
signed to become a committer says:

> 4. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
>   license...

> ...5. You represent that each of Your Contributions is Your original
>   creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of others)...

So any code that you commit needs to be either your own creation, or
something that's been explicitly donated to us.

I see that the contrib/w3c stuff has been deleted now, so case closed
- just wanted to clarify for next time.

-Bertrand

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

The W3C software license is obviously on that list, so the JAR should be
fine, as are multiple other similar artifacts around WebSockets, CSS,
HTML5, etc. under the same license used by a whole lot of Apache projects[?]

Thanks,
Werner

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying, Apache projects must not include a single "3rd party" JAR
>> in the automated build?[?]
>>
>
> It's fine for Apache projects to depend on external things (jars or
> otherwise) as long as those things are under one of the accepted licenses
> mentioned at http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> AFAIK we don't have a place to make binaries available at Apache that do
> not belong to us.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you saying, Apache projects must not include a single "3rd party" JAR
> in the automated build?[?]
>

It's fine for Apache projects to depend on external things (jars or
otherwise) as long as those things are under one of the accepted licenses
mentioned at http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html

AFAIK we don't have a place to make binaries available at Apache that do
not belong to us.

-Bertrand

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Are you saying, Apache projects must not include a single "3rd party" JAR
in the automated build?[?]

Eclipse has something called "Orbit" for exactly that purpose. Libraries
like Apache Commons, etc. despite not EPL are located there. For Eclipse
UOMo which I lead there's been a careful IP assessment and each external
dependency like Unit-API or soon JSR 363 from JCP has to be registered and
approved.

I assume there is something similar for Apache, otherwise Pluto (RI for
Portlet API 1.0-3.0) or Jackrabbit (same for JCR) or Tomcat (the RI for
Servlet/JSP) would all be impossible and illegal[?]
The "burden" of adding let's say "servlet-api" was pretty much taken away
by those projecs, or are you saying there is no CI server that builds
Tomcat with any of the JCP artifacts not written by Apache itself?

W3C DDR is effectively the same as a JCP, OASIS, OGC or other standard. The
JAR manifests the public API and projects implementing it, even though in
this case there is no official "Reference Implementation" are allowed to
use the binary. Whether the person who created the GitHub repo did so with
their consent or not, I don't need to bother about. We used the JAR and
currently still do, that should be OK and not require people to manually
build those artifacts. They can download it and the Readme e.g. for Tomcat
6 looks as follows:
http://mir2.ovh.net/ftp.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6/v6.0.41/RELEASE-NOTES

=============
Bundled APIs:
=============
A standard installation of Tomcat 6.0 makes all of the following APIs
available...


AFAIS we probably needed RELEASE-NOTES similar to what Reza started adding
to a few other artifacts, and at least for SimpleDDR (or if we intended to
have a "W3C compliant" aspect to the new Java Client, also there at some
point) a paragraph like "Bundled APIs" explaining that the W3C standard
library is used seems the way to go here.

Werner


On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ...unless we get the result of the Maven-JAR copy to place it with our
> own
> > artifacts, IDE users will have to live with the missing dependency or
> > manually resolve that...
> >
>
> Yes - we could have instructions on how to download and build that jar,
> pointing for example to the github repository where you copied the w3c code
> from. What's important is to put the burden on our users to decide whether
> that dependency is ok for them, as opposed to code that belongs to the ASF
> and that we are releasing ourselves.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...unless we get the result of the Maven-JAR copy to place it with our own
> artifacts, IDE users will have to live with the missing dependency or
> manually resolve that...
>

Yes - we could have instructions on how to download and build that jar,
pointing for example to the github repository where you copied the w3c code
from. What's important is to put the burden on our users to decide whether
that dependency is ok for them, as opposed to code that belongs to the ASF
and that we are releasing ourselves.

-Bertrand

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...That does not have any relevance to USING that JAR AFAIK, which is what
> the SimpleDDR does and always did...
>

I agree, depending on external code is fine as long as that dependency is
ok w.r.t http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html

What DeviceMap cannot do is release code that does not belong to the ASF.

-Bertrand

Re: Copying code to our repository (was: Was contrib/w3c/ddr-simple contributed with permission?)

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

That does not have any relevance to USING that JAR AFAIK, which is what the
SimpleDDR does and always did.
That is exactly what the project accepted from OpenDDR, that JAR (see
"HowTo") was always there. I simplified the build.
It doesn't require an explicit dependency now, and we won't get a
dismantled W3C WG to do that, so that's going to be the permanent solution
I assume.

I'll comment out the Maven dependency. It makes IDEs behave nicer, but
unless we get the result of the Maven-JAR copy to place it with our own
artifacts, IDE users will have to live with the missing dependency or
manually resolve that. Then the Maven build should go through for the
entire Java sub-tree[?]

Werner

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...It is simply a clone of this:
> > https://github.com/fnk/w3c-ddr ...
>
> You cannot simply "clone" random code to an Apache project repository.
> Apache only accepts voluntary contributions, and the iCLA that you
> signed to become a committer says:
>
> > 4. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
> >   license...
>
> > ...5. You represent that each of Your Contributions is Your original
> >   creation (see section 7 for submissions on behalf of others)...
>
> So any code that you commit needs to be either your own creation, or
> something that's been explicitly donated to us.
>
> I see that the contrib/w3c stuff has been deleted now, so case closed
> - just wanted to clarify for next time.
>
> -Bertrand
>