You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com> on 2015/02/02 21:18:17 UTC
Re: Software Grant Status and Code Migration?
Hi guys,
I see that we have lots of discussion on the Incubator forum as well about how to do the software grant for TinkerPop.
Apologies if I'm coming off as pushy, just wondering if there is a "here is what you do"-conclusion? I will do the leg work to get all the ducks in a row, just need to know what that leg work is.
Thanks you everyone -- I really appreciate your time with this,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
On Jan 31, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * TinkerPop is not an official organization.
> * TinkerPop is a "group of people" developing software.
> * The TinkerPop CLA is the exact same CLA as Apache save "The Apache Software Foundation" has been replaced with "TinkerPop."
> * We have CLAs for every TinkerPop Contributor that has made significant contributions.
> - Everyone for every commit in TP3.
> - We are missing a few danglers of minor "touchup" commits for TP2 (e.g. one timer PRs).
> * We are interested in migrating TP3 over first and foremost and can leave TP2 as it is if the "few danglers" is going to be a problem,
> * If Apache wants an ICLA signed for each of the contributors to TP3, there are only a few, and (I suspect) they will be more than happy to sign an Apache ICLA.
> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
>
> Perhaps we can have a Google Hangout and just nip this thing in the bud?
>
> Thank you,
> Marko.
>
> http://markorodriguez.com
>
> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:09:01 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That sounds good, but did you read my other thread on general@ asking for
>>> some guidance? Sounds like we should reasonably try to make sure *all*
>>> contributions are covered. Now that reasonableness part is a bit nebulous
>>> and I suppose it's ultimately up to the PPMC to make that determination?
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IANAL
>>>>
>>>> Somebody needs to step up and say: "We are TinkerPop". A small group
>>>> (initial committers?) with a critical mass of contributions.
>>>> Without claiming they own the whole IP (that's what CLAs are for) there
>>> is
>>>> a track record of making decisions for the project.
>>>
>>
>> The website says copyright Tinkerpop, the CLAs reference Tinkerpop as an
>> organization. Marko, is there no legal entity representing Tinkerpop? If
>> not, it might be considered a De Facto Corporation; BUT, this would take a
>> lawyer and possibly a court to determine (IANAL).
>>
>> If Tinkerpop is not a legal entity (de jure or de facto), then, IMO, we
>> will need to get ICLAs or SGAs from the individuals that contributed
>> significant IP.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> If the claim will be challenged then we can talk about assertions to
>>>> support the claim, but I suspect there's enough evidence to move ahead
>>> with
>>>> that. That's why I suggested to refile a simpler software grant form with
>>>> secretary@
>>>>
>>>> How does that sound?
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 01/31/2015 10:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tinkerpop has their own CLA for those prior contributions. I think
>>>>> that gives the project rights. The only unclear issue is who
>>>>> 'Tinkerpop' is and who can sign for 'Tinkerpop' since it doesn't seem
>>>>> to be a separate legal entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> --David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:36 AM, James Carman
>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I replied earlier saying I hadn't heard anything further. Craig is
>>>>>> the secretary and he raised his concerns to other folks for some
>>>>>> assistance (I'm being intentionally vague here). The main concern is
>>>>>> that there is no one "entity" that can donate this code to the
>>>>>> foundation (the form only supports one donator). We need forms from
>>>>>> *all* of the contributors (to a certain degree) to the source code to
>>>>>> be donated. I'm no expert on the requirements here, but this isn't
>>>>>> the first time this has come up. The GitHub model fosters this sort
>>>>>> of fly-by involvement, and that's what makes this a bit more
>>>>>> difficult. It has been done before, though. Perhaps we can lean on
>>>>>> some of the other IPMC members for assistance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't see a reply from James, he said he'll take point. There was a
>>>>>>> discussion where the recommendation was to refile and keep just the
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> form with no extra attachments (the original clas). What you sent
>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>> totally overwhelmed our secretary@.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marko, could you please resend? If you have any question please
>>> contact
>>>>>>> James or me off-list. This should not block you though. Even though
>>> the
>>>>>>> grant is for a specific version (tag/sha), I think you can take the
>>> PRs
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> merge them later to the asf repo, as long as the committer
>>>>>>> knows/vouches for
>>>>>>> the origin. Don't feel blocked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/30/2015 07:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has not been approved. (And really, you'll know before any of us
>>> as
>>>>>>>> you'd get a notification from the secretary when he accepts the SGA.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Marko Rodriguez <
>>> okrammarko@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello mentors,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have pull requests backing up and are generally feeling in a
>>>>>>>>> "uhhh--state" right now with our codebase. Can someone please
>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> us an
>>>>>>>>> update on where we are with the software grant approval process?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Software Grant Status and Code Migration?
Posted by Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
Perfect, on it.
Thank you,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
On Feb 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marko, I already gave a suggestion that I believe will work.
>
> Resubmit the software grant form [1] using 2 names and signatures: spmallette and okram as the Licensor, Representing: "The TinkerPop project".
> As Exhibit A: add the github repository(ies) and the shas (tags) of the version(s) that constitute the grant. Mention in exhibit A that the artwork (logo) is included in the software grant, provide link.
>
> Very simple. We'll take it from there.
>
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> [2] https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
>
>
> On 02/02/2015 03:18 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I see that we have lots of discussion on the Incubator forum as well about how to do the software grant for TinkerPop.
>>
>> Apologies if I'm coming off as pushy, just wondering if there is a "here is what you do"-conclusion? I will do the leg work to get all the ducks in a row, just need to know what that leg work is.
>>
>> Thanks you everyone -- I really appreciate your time with this,
>> Marko.
>>
>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> * TinkerPop is not an official organization.
>>> * TinkerPop is a "group of people" developing software.
>>> * The TinkerPop CLA is the exact same CLA as Apache save "The Apache Software Foundation" has been replaced with "TinkerPop."
>>> * We have CLAs for every TinkerPop Contributor that has made significant contributions.
>>> - Everyone for every commit in TP3.
>>> - We are missing a few danglers of minor "touchup" commits for TP2 (e.g. one timer PRs).
>>> * We are interested in migrating TP3 over first and foremost and can leave TP2 as it is if the "few danglers" is going to be a problem,
>>> * If Apache wants an ICLA signed for each of the contributors to TP3, there are only a few, and (I suspect) they will be more than happy to sign an Apache ICLA.
>>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can have a Google Hangout and just nip this thing in the bud?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Marko.
>>>
>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:09:01 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That sounds good, but did you read my other thread on general@ asking for
>>>>> some guidance? Sounds like we should reasonably try to make sure *all*
>>>>> contributions are covered. Now that reasonableness part is a bit nebulous
>>>>> and I suppose it's ultimately up to the PPMC to make that determination?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IANAL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Somebody needs to step up and say: "We are TinkerPop". A small group
>>>>>> (initial committers?) with a critical mass of contributions.
>>>>>> Without claiming they own the whole IP (that's what CLAs are for) there
>>>>> is
>>>>>> a track record of making decisions for the project.
>>>> The website says copyright Tinkerpop, the CLAs reference Tinkerpop as an
>>>> organization. Marko, is there no legal entity representing Tinkerpop? If
>>>> not, it might be considered a De Facto Corporation; BUT, this would take a
>>>> lawyer and possibly a court to determine (IANAL).
>>>>
>>>> If Tinkerpop is not a legal entity (de jure or de facto), then, IMO, we
>>>> will need to get ICLAs or SGAs from the individuals that contributed
>>>> significant IP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If the claim will be challenged then we can talk about assertions to
>>>>>> support the claim, but I suspect there's enough evidence to move ahead
>>>>> with
>>>>>> that. That's why I suggested to refile a simpler software grant form with
>>>>>> secretary@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/31/2015 10:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tinkerpop has their own CLA for those prior contributions. I think
>>>>>>> that gives the project rights. The only unclear issue is who
>>>>>>> 'Tinkerpop' is and who can sign for 'Tinkerpop' since it doesn't seem
>>>>>>> to be a separate legal entity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:36 AM, James Carman
>>>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I replied earlier saying I hadn't heard anything further. Craig is
>>>>>>>> the secretary and he raised his concerns to other folks for some
>>>>>>>> assistance (I'm being intentionally vague here). The main concern is
>>>>>>>> that there is no one "entity" that can donate this code to the
>>>>>>>> foundation (the form only supports one donator). We need forms from
>>>>>>>> *all* of the contributors (to a certain degree) to the source code to
>>>>>>>> be donated. I'm no expert on the requirements here, but this isn't
>>>>>>>> the first time this has come up. The GitHub model fosters this sort
>>>>>>>> of fly-by involvement, and that's what makes this a bit more
>>>>>>>> difficult. It has been done before, though. Perhaps we can lean on
>>>>>>>> some of the other IPMC members for assistance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't see a reply from James, he said he'll take point. There was a
>>>>>>>>> discussion where the recommendation was to refile and keep just the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> form with no extra attachments (the original clas). What you sent
>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>> totally overwhelmed our secretary@.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marko, could you please resend? If you have any question please
>>>>> contact
>>>>>>>>> James or me off-list. This should not block you though. Even though
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> grant is for a specific version (tag/sha), I think you can take the
>>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> merge them later to the asf repo, as long as the committer
>>>>>>>>> knows/vouches for
>>>>>>>>> the origin. Don't feel blocked.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2015 07:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has not been approved. (And really, you'll know before any of us
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> you'd get a notification from the secretary when he accepts the SGA.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Marko Rodriguez <
>>>>> okrammarko@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello mentors,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have pull requests backing up and are generally feeling in a
>>>>>>>>>>> "uhhh--state" right now with our codebase. Can someone please
>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>> us an
>>>>>>>>>>> update on where we are with the software grant approval process?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>>>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>
Re: Software Grant Status and Code Migration?
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Marko, I already gave a suggestion that I believe will work.
Resubmit the software grant form [1] using 2 names and signatures:
spmallette and okram as the Licensor, Representing: "The TinkerPop project".
As Exhibit A: add the github repository(ies) and the shas (tags) of the
version(s) that constitute the grant. Mention in exhibit A that the
artwork (logo) is included in the software grant, provide link.
Very simple. We'll take it from there.
Cheers,
Hadrian
[1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
[2] https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
On 02/02/2015 03:18 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I see that we have lots of discussion on the Incubator forum as well about how to do the software grant for TinkerPop.
>
> Apologies if I'm coming off as pushy, just wondering if there is a "here is what you do"-conclusion? I will do the leg work to get all the ducks in a row, just need to know what that leg work is.
>
> Thanks you everyone -- I really appreciate your time with this,
> Marko.
>
> http://markorodriguez.com
>
> On Jan 31, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> * TinkerPop is not an official organization.
>> * TinkerPop is a "group of people" developing software.
>> * The TinkerPop CLA is the exact same CLA as Apache save "The Apache Software Foundation" has been replaced with "TinkerPop."
>> * We have CLAs for every TinkerPop Contributor that has made significant contributions.
>> - Everyone for every commit in TP3.
>> - We are missing a few danglers of minor "touchup" commits for TP2 (e.g. one timer PRs).
>> * We are interested in migrating TP3 over first and foremost and can leave TP2 as it is if the "few danglers" is going to be a problem,
>> * If Apache wants an ICLA signed for each of the contributors to TP3, there are only a few, and (I suspect) they will be more than happy to sign an Apache ICLA.
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
>>
>> Perhaps we can have a Google Hangout and just nip this thing in the bud?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Marko.
>>
>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:09:01 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That sounds good, but did you read my other thread on general@ asking for
>>>> some guidance? Sounds like we should reasonably try to make sure *all*
>>>> contributions are covered. Now that reasonableness part is a bit nebulous
>>>> and I suppose it's ultimately up to the PPMC to make that determination?
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IANAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody needs to step up and say: "We are TinkerPop". A small group
>>>>> (initial committers?) with a critical mass of contributions.
>>>>> Without claiming they own the whole IP (that's what CLAs are for) there
>>>> is
>>>>> a track record of making decisions for the project.
>>> The website says copyright Tinkerpop, the CLAs reference Tinkerpop as an
>>> organization. Marko, is there no legal entity representing Tinkerpop? If
>>> not, it might be considered a De Facto Corporation; BUT, this would take a
>>> lawyer and possibly a court to determine (IANAL).
>>>
>>> If Tinkerpop is not a legal entity (de jure or de facto), then, IMO, we
>>> will need to get ICLAs or SGAs from the individuals that contributed
>>> significant IP.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If the claim will be challenged then we can talk about assertions to
>>>>> support the claim, but I suspect there's enough evidence to move ahead
>>>> with
>>>>> that. That's why I suggested to refile a simpler software grant form with
>>>>> secretary@
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2015 10:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tinkerpop has their own CLA for those prior contributions. I think
>>>>>> that gives the project rights. The only unclear issue is who
>>>>>> 'Tinkerpop' is and who can sign for 'Tinkerpop' since it doesn't seem
>>>>>> to be a separate legal entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:36 AM, James Carman
>>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I replied earlier saying I hadn't heard anything further. Craig is
>>>>>>> the secretary and he raised his concerns to other folks for some
>>>>>>> assistance (I'm being intentionally vague here). The main concern is
>>>>>>> that there is no one "entity" that can donate this code to the
>>>>>>> foundation (the form only supports one donator). We need forms from
>>>>>>> *all* of the contributors (to a certain degree) to the source code to
>>>>>>> be donated. I'm no expert on the requirements here, but this isn't
>>>>>>> the first time this has come up. The GitHub model fosters this sort
>>>>>>> of fly-by involvement, and that's what makes this a bit more
>>>>>>> difficult. It has been done before, though. Perhaps we can lean on
>>>>>>> some of the other IPMC members for assistance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't see a reply from James, he said he'll take point. There was a
>>>>>>>> discussion where the recommendation was to refile and keep just the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> form with no extra attachments (the original clas). What you sent
>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>> totally overwhelmed our secretary@.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marko, could you please resend? If you have any question please
>>>> contact
>>>>>>>> James or me off-list. This should not block you though. Even though
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> grant is for a specific version (tag/sha), I think you can take the
>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> merge them later to the asf repo, as long as the committer
>>>>>>>> knows/vouches for
>>>>>>>> the origin. Don't feel blocked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2015 07:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has not been approved. (And really, you'll know before any of us
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> you'd get a notification from the secretary when he accepts the SGA.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Marko Rodriguez <
>>>> okrammarko@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello mentors,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have pull requests backing up and are generally feeling in a
>>>>>>>>>> "uhhh--state" right now with our codebase. Can someone please
>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> us an
>>>>>>>>>> update on where we are with the software grant approval process?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
Re: Software Grant Status and Code Migration?
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Marko, I already gave a suggestion that I believe will work.
Resubmit the software grant form [1] using 2 names and signatures:
spmallette and okram as the Licensor, Representing: "The TinkerPop project".
As Exhibit A: add the github repository(ies) and the shas (tags) of the
version(s) that constitute the grant. Mention in exhibit A that the
artwork (logo) is included in the software grant, provide link.
Very simple. We'll take it from there.
Cheers,
Hadrian
[1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
[2] https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
On 02/02/2015 03:18 PM, Marko Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I see that we have lots of discussion on the Incubator forum as well about how to do the software grant for TinkerPop.
>
> Apologies if I'm coming off as pushy, just wondering if there is a "here is what you do"-conclusion? I will do the leg work to get all the ducks in a row, just need to know what that leg work is.
>
> Thanks you everyone -- I really appreciate your time with this,
> Marko.
>
> http://markorodriguez.com
>
> On Jan 31, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Marko Rodriguez <ok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> * TinkerPop is not an official organization.
>> * TinkerPop is a "group of people" developing software.
>> * The TinkerPop CLA is the exact same CLA as Apache save "The Apache Software Foundation" has been replaced with "TinkerPop."
>> * We have CLAs for every TinkerPop Contributor that has made significant contributions.
>> - Everyone for every commit in TP3.
>> - We are missing a few danglers of minor "touchup" commits for TP2 (e.g. one timer PRs).
>> * We are interested in migrating TP3 over first and foremost and can leave TP2 as it is if the "few danglers" is going to be a problem,
>> * If Apache wants an ICLA signed for each of the contributors to TP3, there are only a few, and (I suspect) they will be more than happy to sign an Apache ICLA.
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3/graphs/contributors
>>
>> Perhaps we can have a Google Hangout and just nip this thing in the bud?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Marko.
>>
>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat Jan 31 2015 at 11:09:01 AM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That sounds good, but did you read my other thread on general@ asking for
>>>> some guidance? Sounds like we should reasonably try to make sure *all*
>>>> contributions are covered. Now that reasonableness part is a bit nebulous
>>>> and I suppose it's ultimately up to the PPMC to make that determination?
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IANAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Somebody needs to step up and say: "We are TinkerPop". A small group
>>>>> (initial committers?) with a critical mass of contributions.
>>>>> Without claiming they own the whole IP (that's what CLAs are for) there
>>>> is
>>>>> a track record of making decisions for the project.
>>> The website says copyright Tinkerpop, the CLAs reference Tinkerpop as an
>>> organization. Marko, is there no legal entity representing Tinkerpop? If
>>> not, it might be considered a De Facto Corporation; BUT, this would take a
>>> lawyer and possibly a court to determine (IANAL).
>>>
>>> If Tinkerpop is not a legal entity (de jure or de facto), then, IMO, we
>>> will need to get ICLAs or SGAs from the individuals that contributed
>>> significant IP.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If the claim will be challenged then we can talk about assertions to
>>>>> support the claim, but I suspect there's enough evidence to move ahead
>>>> with
>>>>> that. That's why I suggested to refile a simpler software grant form with
>>>>> secretary@
>>>>>
>>>>> How does that sound?
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/31/2015 10:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tinkerpop has their own CLA for those prior contributions. I think
>>>>>> that gives the project rights. The only unclear issue is who
>>>>>> 'Tinkerpop' is and who can sign for 'Tinkerpop' since it doesn't seem
>>>>>> to be a separate legal entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:36 AM, James Carman
>>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I replied earlier saying I hadn't heard anything further. Craig is
>>>>>>> the secretary and he raised his concerns to other folks for some
>>>>>>> assistance (I'm being intentionally vague here). The main concern is
>>>>>>> that there is no one "entity" that can donate this code to the
>>>>>>> foundation (the form only supports one donator). We need forms from
>>>>>>> *all* of the contributors (to a certain degree) to the source code to
>>>>>>> be donated. I'm no expert on the requirements here, but this isn't
>>>>>>> the first time this has come up. The GitHub model fosters this sort
>>>>>>> of fly-by involvement, and that's what makes this a bit more
>>>>>>> difficult. It has been done before, though. Perhaps we can lean on
>>>>>>> some of the other IPMC members for assistance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't see a reply from James, he said he'll take point. There was a
>>>>>>>> discussion where the recommendation was to refile and keep just the
>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>> form with no extra attachments (the original clas). What you sent
>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>> totally overwhelmed our secretary@.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marko, could you please resend? If you have any question please
>>>> contact
>>>>>>>> James or me off-list. This should not block you though. Even though
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> grant is for a specific version (tag/sha), I think you can take the
>>>> PRs
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> merge them later to the asf repo, as long as the committer
>>>>>>>> knows/vouches for
>>>>>>>> the origin. Don't feel blocked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2015 07:29 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has not been approved. (And really, you'll know before any of us
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> you'd get a notification from the secretary when he accepts the SGA.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --David
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Marko Rodriguez <
>>>> okrammarko@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello mentors,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have pull requests backing up and are generally feeling in a
>>>>>>>>>> "uhhh--state" right now with our codebase. Can someone please
>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>> us an
>>>>>>>>>> update on where we are with the software grant approval process?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much,
>>>>>>>>>> Marko.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>