You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> on 2012/07/08 04:22:18 UTC
Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
2010-09-05 nuvem
2010-11-12 kitty
2010-11-24 stanbol
2011-06-13 openofficeorg
Said checklist item is:
"Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these rights?
Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
Note that this list comes from
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/09/2012 01:19 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Marcus (OOo)<ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 07/08/2012 01:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>>
>>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Henri Yandell"<fl...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>>> To: "general-incubator"<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist
>>>> item:
>>>>
>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>
>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>
>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>>
>>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>>> rights?
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>>
>>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright"
>>> section:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>>
>>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>>> well.
>>
>>
>> When we put in the first and the most recent date, maybe someone from the
>> Apache officials can tell which is *the* date. Otherwise we hit it anyway.
>>
>
> I've updated the page using the date of the 2nd SGA from Oracle:
> 2011-10-21. That was the basis for our 3.4 release.
>
> I like the idea of listing all of the SGA's, but this page is
> processed to produce some roll-up reports, and I don't know if the
> automation will choke if we get too fancy with the inputs. So I'm
> listing only that one date for now.
Ah, right. I remember dimly the big overview page which gets its data
out of the projects status pages. So the latest SGA date is maybe really
the best one.
Marcus
>>>> Note that this list comes from
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>>>
>>>> Hen
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 07/08/2012 01:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>>
>>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Henri Yandell"<fl...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>>> To: "general-incubator"<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist
>>>> item:
>>>>
>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>
>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>
>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>>
>>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>>> rights?
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>>
>>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright"
>>> section:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>>
>>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>>> well.
>>
>>
>> When we put in the first and the most recent date, maybe someone from the
>> Apache officials can tell which is *the* date. Otherwise we hit it anyway.
>>
>
> I've updated the page using the date of the 2nd SGA from Oracle:
> 2011-10-21. That was the basis for our 3.4 release.
>
> I like the idea of listing all of the SGA's, but this page is
> processed to produce some roll-up reports, and I don't know if the
> automation will choke if we get too fancy with the inputs. So I'm
> listing only that one date for now.
Thanks everyone :)
Hen
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 07/08/2012 01:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>
>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Henri Yandell"<fl...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>> To: "general-incubator"<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>
>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist
>>> item:
>>>
>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>
>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>
>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>
>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>> rights?
>>>
>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>
>>
>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>
>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright"
>> section:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>
>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>> well.
>
>
> When we put in the first and the most recent date, maybe someone from the
> Apache officials can tell which is *the* date. Otherwise we hit it anyway.
>
I've updated the page using the date of the 2nd SGA from Oracle:
2011-10-21. That was the basis for our 3.4 release.
I like the idea of listing all of the SGA's, but this page is
processed to produce some roll-up reports, and I don't know if the
automation will choke if we get too fancy with the inputs. So I'm
listing only that one date for now.
-Rob
> My 2 ct.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>>> Note that this list comes from
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 07/08/2012 01:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>
>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Henri Yandell"<fl...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>> To: "general-incubator"<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>
>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>
>> 2009-02-09 kato
>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>> 2010-05-19 amber
>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>
>> Said checklist item is:
>>
>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>
>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>> rights?
>>
>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>
>
> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>
> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>
> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
> well.
When we put in the first and the most recent date, maybe someone from
the Apache officials can tell which is *the* date. Otherwise we hit it
anyway.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
>> Note that this list comes from
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>
>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>
>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>
>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>
>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>
>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>
>
> Also, does this question even make sense?
>
> Neither the SGA not the iCLA "transfers" any rights to the ASF. We
> don't ask for copyright. We just ask for a license. But it is
> non-exclusive.
>
> So if anyone thinks this refers to something that actually requires a
> "transfer" of copyright, please speak up, so we can track this down.
>
> -Rob
>
>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>> rights?
>>>
>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>
>>
>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>
>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>
>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>> well.
I'd put in the date the Oracle SGA was received (presumably the first
code commit).
Apologies for being a bureaucrat on this - I use it to drive
recognition of dead projects. :)
Hen
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>>
>>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>>> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>>
>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>
>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>
>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>>
>>
>> Also, does this question even make sense?
>>
>> Neither the SGA not the iCLA "transfers" any rights to the ASF. We
>> don't ask for copyright. We just ask for a license. But it is
>> non-exclusive.
>
> Trademarks and domain name registrations are transferred rights. Perhaps trademarks@a.o can answer if this is completed for OpenOffice.org? Or, are there unanswered questions and incomplete steps?
>
So we're all on the same page, the page we're talking about is here:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
The text Henri quoted is in the section called "Copyright". So it
would be natural to interpret it as referring to copyright transfer.
Trademarks are explicitly dealt with in another section, called
"identify the project to be incubated". I think we can mark that one
as completed since Shane already approved the name "Apache
OpenOffice".
-Rob
>>
>> So if anyone thinks this refers to something that actually requires a
>> "transfer" of copyright, please speak up, so we can track this down.
>
> It says "rights" and not "copyrights". It may be that this also includes the point in time when all of the headers are converted to the AL headers and the SVN passes the RAT test. Is this so?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>>> rights?
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>>
>>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>>
>>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>> Note that this list comes from
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>>>
>>>> Hen
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>>
>>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>>> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>>
>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>
>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>
>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>>
>>
>> Also, does this question even make sense?
>>
>> Neither the SGA not the iCLA "transfers" any rights to the ASF. We
>> don't ask for copyright. We just ask for a license. But it is
>> non-exclusive.
>
> Trademarks and domain name registrations are transferred rights. Perhaps trademarks@a.o can answer if this is completed for OpenOffice.org? Or, are there unanswered questions and incomplete steps?
>
>>
>> So if anyone thinks this refers to something that actually requires a
>> "transfer" of copyright, please speak up, so we can track this down.
>
> It says "rights" and not "copyrights". It may be that this also includes the point in time when all of the headers are converted to the AL headers and the SVN passes the RAT test. Is this so?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
That (source headers) is the next line item on the page.
Hen
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>>
>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>>> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>>
>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>
>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>
>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>
>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>
>
> Also, does this question even make sense?
>
> Neither the SGA not the iCLA "transfers" any rights to the ASF. We
> don't ask for copyright. We just ask for a license. But it is
> non-exclusive.
Trademarks and domain name registrations are transferred rights. Perhaps trademarks@a.o can answer if this is completed for OpenOffice.org? Or, are there unanswered questions and incomplete steps?
>
> So if anyone thinks this refers to something that actually requires a
> "transfer" of copyright, please speak up, so we can track this down.
It says "rights" and not "copyrights". It may be that this also includes the point in time when all of the headers are converted to the AL headers and the SVN passes the RAT test. Is this so?
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>>> rights?
>>>
>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>>
>>
>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>>
>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>>
>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
>> well.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Note that this list comes from
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>>
>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
>> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>>
>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>
>> 2009-02-09 kato
>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>> 2010-05-19 amber
>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>
>> Said checklist item is:
>>
>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>
Also, does this question even make sense?
Neither the SGA not the iCLA "transfers" any rights to the ASF. We
don't ask for copyright. We just ask for a license. But it is
non-exclusive.
So if anyone thinks this refers to something that actually requires a
"transfer" of copyright, please speak up, so we can track this down.
-Rob
>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
>> rights?
>>
>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>>
>
> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
>
> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>
> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
> well.
>
> -Rob
>
>> Note that this list comes from
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Seems we missed a bit of process...
>
> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
> To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>
> 2009-02-09 kato
> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
> 2009-05-13 socialsite
> 2010-05-19 amber
> 2010-09-05 nuvem
> 2010-11-12 kitty
> 2010-11-24 stanbol
> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>
> Said checklist item is:
>
> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>
> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
> rights?
>
> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>
Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been
received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony
contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C.
So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" section:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an
ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions
of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as
well.
-Rob
> Note that this list comes from
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Fwd: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Seems we missed a bit of process...
>From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Henri Yandell" <fl...@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM
Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
To: "general-incubator" <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
2010-09-05 nuvem
2010-11-12 kitty
2010-11-24 stanbol
2011-06-13 openofficeorg
Said checklist item is:
"Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these
rights?
Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
Note that this list comes from
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com>.
Hi Kevan,
On Jul 13, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright
>> checklist item:
>>
>> 2009-02-09 kato
>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>> 2010-05-19 amber
>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>
>> Said checklist item is:
>>
>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>
> IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no
> code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been
> received', I can do that.
If there's no code base (pretty rare, from what I've seen) then the
"papers that transfer rights to ASF" could be subsumed by "committers
have all submitted ICLAs".
In this case, I'd tick the box and be done with it.
Craig
>
> --kevan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
OK, there's a grant filed. It has an MD5 in it. Ant linked to it. An
MD5 is not much help in matching the contents of svn to the contents
of the granted zip file, but I'll poke around for any other large
commits, and, if none exist, do as suggested.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
>>> >
>>> > Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
>>> > either signed ICLA/grants with us, or that the source was already
>>> > licensed under a category A license.
>>>
>>> I volunteered to deal with all this as an expansion of a Shepherd
>>> assignment. I confess that I'm feeling a bit whelmed.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, here's how I'd approach this:
>>
>> * Look at the original Kato proposal (
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KatoProposal) for insight on what
>> pre-Apache IP was supposed to be transferred to us.
>> * Check the early Kato svn history for commits containing that IP (see
>> especially revision 754956,
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=754956).
>> * Follow the pointers to the relevant records under
>> /repos/private/documents to verify that the mentioned paperwork is in place.
>> * If it indeed is, mark the IP as cleared on the Kato status page.
>> * If it isn't, consider whether the ICLA on file for the committer who
>> submitted the IP is sufficient to grant as the rights to keep the code.
>> * Based on all the above, make an informed judgement call on whether we can
>> keep the code in svn or not.
>>
>> I hope this helps! If still needed, I'd be happy to help out in a few weeks
>> when I'm back from vacation.
>
> Oops - sorry Benson. I hadn't realized you had as much historical
> knowledge as I have :) Let me know if I can help.
>
> Jukka's advice is great :)
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> > Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
>> >
>> > Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
>> > either signed ICLA/grants with us, or that the source was already
>> > licensed under a category A license.
>>
>> I volunteered to deal with all this as an expansion of a Shepherd
>> assignment. I confess that I'm feeling a bit whelmed.
>>
>
> FWIW, here's how I'd approach this:
>
> * Look at the original Kato proposal (
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KatoProposal) for insight on what
> pre-Apache IP was supposed to be transferred to us.
> * Check the early Kato svn history for commits containing that IP (see
> especially revision 754956,
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=754956).
> * Follow the pointers to the relevant records under
> /repos/private/documents to verify that the mentioned paperwork is in place.
> * If it indeed is, mark the IP as cleared on the Kato status page.
> * If it isn't, consider whether the ICLA on file for the committer who
> submitted the IP is sufficient to grant as the rights to keep the code.
> * Based on all the above, make an informed judgement call on whether we can
> keep the code in svn or not.
>
> I hope this helps! If still needed, I'd be happy to help out in a few weeks
> when I'm back from vacation.
Oops - sorry Benson. I hadn't realized you had as much historical
knowledge as I have :) Let me know if I can help.
Jukka's advice is great :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell <flamefew@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
> >
> > Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
> > either signed ICLA/grants with us, or that the source was already
> > licensed under a category A license.
>
> I volunteered to deal with all this as an expansion of a Shepherd
> assignment. I confess that I'm feeling a bit whelmed.
>
FWIW, here's how I'd approach this:
* Look at the original Kato proposal (
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KatoProposal) for insight on what
pre-Apache IP was supposed to be transferred to us.
* Check the early Kato svn history for commits containing that IP (see
especially revision 754956,
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=754956).
* Follow the pointers to the relevant records under
/repos/private/documents to verify that the mentioned paperwork is in place.
* If it indeed is, mark the IP as cleared on the Kato status page.
* If it isn't, consider whether the ICLA on file for the committer who
submitted the IP is sufficient to grant as the rights to keep the code.
* Based on all the above, make an informed judgement call on whether we can
keep the code in svn or not.
I hope this helps! If still needed, I'd be happy to help out in a few weeks
when I'm back from vacation.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/kato.html should have a check mark for:
>
> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>
> Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
>
> Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
> either signed ICLA/grants with us, or that the source was already
> licensed under a category A license.
I volunteered to deal with all this as an expansion of a Shepherd
assignment. I confess that I'm feeling a bit whelmed.
>
> Hen
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Benson Margulies
> <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Henri,
>>
>> Ant pointed out that Kato released. Where is the signoff you are looking at?
>>
>> --benson
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>>
>>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been received', I can do that.
>>>
>>> Thanks Kevan :)
>>>
>>> I've updated kitty.xml to say n/a rather than a date as that's the
>>> method that's been used in the past to identify no need for
>>> grant/donation.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/kato.html should have a check mark for:
"Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
either signed ICLA/grants with us, or that the source was already
licensed under a category A license.
Hen
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Benson Margulies
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Henri,
>
> Ant pointed out that Kato released. Where is the signoff you are looking at?
>
> --benson
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>>
>>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>>
>>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>>
>>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>>
>>> IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been received', I can do that.
>>
>> Thanks Kevan :)
>>
>> I've updated kitty.xml to say n/a rather than a date as that's the
>> method that's been used in the past to identify no need for
>> grant/donation.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Henri,
Ant pointed out that Kato released. Where is the signoff you are looking at?
--benson
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>
>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>>
>>> Said checklist item is:
>>>
>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>>
>> IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been received', I can do that.
>
> Thanks Kevan :)
>
> I've updated kitty.xml to say n/a rather than a date as that's the
> method that's been used in the past to identify no need for
> grant/donation.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>
>> 2009-02-09 kato
>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>> 2010-05-19 amber
>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>
>> Said checklist item is:
>>
>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>
> IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been received', I can do that.
Thanks Kevan :)
I've updated kitty.xml to say n/a rather than a date as that's the
method that's been used in the past to identify no need for
grant/donation.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>
> 2009-02-09 kato
> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
> 2009-05-13 socialsite
> 2010-05-19 amber
> 2010-09-05 nuvem
> 2010-11-12 kitty
> 2010-11-24 stanbol
> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>
> Said checklist item is:
>
> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
IIRC, there was no code grant/donation for Kitty. So, there was no code grant. If that means I should indicate the 'papers have been received', I can do that.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi Henri,
Amber wise we tracked this in [0].
Now I am not sure if we can also tick the box.
Regards
Antonio
[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-134
On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>
> 2009-02-09 kato
> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
> 2009-05-13 socialsite
> 2010-05-19 amber
> 2010-09-05 nuvem
> 2010-11-12 kitty
> 2010-11-24 stanbol
> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>
> Said checklist item is:
>
> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. "
>
> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these rights?
>
> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice.
>
> Note that this list comes from
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
I think this is something related to
<http://incubator.apache.org/projects/amber.html> I'll try to rebuild
the history later...
thanks!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com> wrote:
> FYI
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> Updating status.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>>
>>> 2009-02-09 kato
>>
>> Retiring. Source needs deleting(?).
>>
>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>>
>> Retired. Source needs deleting(?).
>>
>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>>
>> Marked as Dormant (not sure how that differs from Retired). No source
>> to delete. I'll drop this from my pester list :)
>>
>>> 2010-05-19 amber
>>
>> Active development.
>
>
> Is there anything we are supposed to do or we are fine now we have solved our IP/copyright issues?
>
> Regards
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
>>
>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>>
>> Activish (2 months ago).
>>
>>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>>
>> Activish (3 months ago).
>>
>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>>
>> Active development.
>>
>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>>
>> Ross has pinged the list.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
FYI
On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Updating status.
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>>
>> 2009-02-09 kato
>
> Retiring. Source needs deleting(?).
>
>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
>
> Retired. Source needs deleting(?).
>
>> 2009-05-13 socialsite
>
> Marked as Dormant (not sure how that differs from Retired). No source
> to delete. I'll drop this from my pester list :)
>
>> 2010-05-19 amber
>
> Active development.
Is there anything we are supposed to do or we are fine now we have solved our IP/copyright issues?
Regards
Antonio
>
>> 2010-09-05 nuvem
>
> Activish (2 months ago).
>
>> 2010-11-12 kitty
>
> Activish (3 months ago).
>
>> 2010-11-24 stanbol
>
> Active development.
>
>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
>
> Ross has pinged the list.
>
> ---
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
Updating status.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
>
> 2009-02-09 kato
Retiring. Source needs deleting(?).
> 2009-02-13 stonehenge
Retired. Source needs deleting(?).
> 2009-05-13 socialsite
Marked as Dormant (not sure how that differs from Retired). No source
to delete. I'll drop this from my pester list :)
> 2010-05-19 amber
Active development.
> 2010-09-05 nuvem
Activish (2 months ago).
> 2010-11-12 kitty
Activish (3 months ago).
> 2010-11-24 stanbol
Active development.
> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg
Ross has pinged the list.
---
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org