You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org> on 2008/05/18 22:10:54 UTC
Sort Out Incubator IP Clearance
a little while the incubator had a heated discussion (http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x) this ends with http://markmail.org/message/bxpljwrh3fzgvilo but i haven't heard anything more about it and i'm still stuck explaining on list why the template is wrong.
<legal-hat>
1. have we (the legal committee) accepted this task?
2. can't we (the legal committee) just recommend that we (the incubator) rationalise the items recorded as suggested by roy?
</legal-hat>
- robert
RE: Sort Out Incubator IP Clearance
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 20:54 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > My understanding matches Bill's: the Incubator is charged with
> > accepting foreign code bases and establishing the policy that
> > works best for them.
>
> I'm not concerned with policy. I just want to make sure that whatever legal
> i's and t's that the Legal Committee considers important to deal with such
> matters as provenance are satisfied, as in your comment that:
>
> > These issues are coupled only in that the it works out best if the
> > former complies with the latter. :-)
>
> > I would fully support the Legal Affairs Committee making a statement
> > that we do not require anything beyond what Roy specified in his list.
>
> That would be sufficient in my view. As I had said in my comment on
> general@i.a.o, I had not objection to the content change, but only to the
> lack of advice/consent/oversight from the Legal Committee.
IMHO there were enough committee members involved to provide oversight
and advice: it's just confusing when people wear several hats each atop
the other. consent is another matter.
i propose https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-74 is used to
draft some minimal requirements for which consent can be given. please
jump with corrections and improvements.
- robert
RE: Sort Out Incubator IP Clearance
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> My understanding matches Bill's: the Incubator is charged with
> accepting foreign code bases and establishing the policy that
> works best for them.
I'm not concerned with policy. I just want to make sure that whatever legal
i's and t's that the Legal Committee considers important to deal with such
matters as provenance are satisfied, as in your comment that:
> These issues are coupled only in that the it works out best if the
> former complies with the latter. :-)
> I would fully support the Legal Affairs Committee making a statement
> that we do not require anything beyond what Roy specified in his list.
That would be sufficient in my view. As I had said in my comment on
general@i.a.o, I had not objection to the content change, but only to the
lack of advice/consent/oversight from the Legal Committee.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sort Out Incubator IP Clearance
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>> <legal-hat>
>> 1. have we (the legal committee) accepted this task?
>
> ENOCLUE - Noel (not Sam) suggested we are supposed to.
>
> However, there is more than one way to skin a horse. If Incubator wants to
> take on writing out a straightforward policy and workflow that includes what
> the legal committee insists on (licensing, code grant form etc) then that
> falls under that area, I think. Incubator is charged with accepting foreign
> code bases and establishing the policy that works best for them.
We apparently do have our wires crossed.
My understanding matches Bill's: the Incubator is charged with
accepting foreign code bases and establishing the policy that works
best for them.
The legal affairs commitee is charged with establishing the policy for
what licenses we release software under.
Perhaps Noel confused the two? These issues are coupled only in that
the it works out best if the former complies with the latter. :-)
>> 2. can't we (the legal committee) just recommend that we (the incubator)
>> rationalise the items recorded as suggested by roy?
>> </legal-hat>
>
> +1 - I'd like to see a revised IP clearance proposal from incubator and as
> the legal committee, simply ratify their suggested changes.
I would fully support the Legal Affairs Committee making a statement
that we do not require anything beyond what Roy specified in his list.
If the Incubator feels a need to go beyond that, they are, of course,
welcome to do so.
> Bill
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sort Out Incubator IP Clearance
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> <legal-hat>
> 1. have we (the legal committee) accepted this task?
ENOCLUE - Noel (not Sam) suggested we are supposed to.
However, there is more than one way to skin a horse. If Incubator wants to
take on writing out a straightforward policy and workflow that includes what
the legal committee insists on (licensing, code grant form etc) then that
falls under that area, I think. Incubator is charged with accepting foreign
code bases and establishing the policy that works best for them.
> 2. can't we (the legal committee) just recommend that we (the incubator) rationalise the items recorded as suggested by roy?
> </legal-hat>
+1 - I'd like to see a revised IP clearance proposal from incubator and as
the legal committee, simply ratify their suggested changes.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org