You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2007/03/19 23:14:58 UTC
SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> Hmm, this seems like an example of where "legal red tape" may be
> getting
> in the way of the "spirit of reuse".
One man's "spirit of reuse" is another's copyright infringement. This
is not something to take lightly.
EPL is very specific:
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of
the Program.
Distributing EPL code in source form under the Apache License is a
violation of these EPL terms. Period.
To distribute this code under the Apache License it needs to be
relicensed by the copyright owner. This is not an ongoing
contribution as covered by a CCLA but a grant of software written
elsewhere to the Foundation. There is a process for this, handled by
the Incubator:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
Another alternative might be to distribute the code in binary form.
This would involve making the "necessary change" elsewhere (say at
Eclipse), releasing that derivative under the EPL in binary form.
Tuscany would then be able to redistribute that code in its binary
form. That's a suggestion - you probably want to talk to a lawyer and
I would suggest running it past legal-discuss@a.o
> Here's the general problem:
>
> 1) We need to override a base class' behavior to do something
> "slightly
> different".
> 2) Looking at the base class, we notice that it requires a tiny
> change in
> the middle of a medium to large sized method. We request a slight
> refactoring of the base (EMF) code, which they agree to fix in
> their next
> version.
> 3) We can't move to the next version yet, so we add a copy of the
> method
> (with the change) in our subclass and then proceed as if it was
> already in
> the base class.
>
> Note that we really don't want to do this in the first place
> because if we
> later forget to remove the override and EMF fixes some other bug in
> the
> same method, we won't ever pick up the fix. Unfortunately, however, we
> have no choice in the short term other than to rewrite the whole
> method,
> but since it's intricately tied to the rest of the base class
> implementation it really couldn't be much different. We could
> rewrite the
> entire class, but that completely defeats the purpose of reuse.
>
> Does anybody know how this kind of "necessary copying" is addressed? I
> also wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed
> method" vs
> "a copied method with a change" in a subclass? For example, what if
> one of
> the copied methods was only 3 lines and we changed one of them? Is
> that
> still a copy?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 10:27:52 AM:
>
>> The original code here is EPL (I assume), which Apache projects can
>> include in binary form but not in source form. See here for details:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>
>> We need to remove the original code from the repo. After that, there
>> are two options:
>> * Have the IP owner (I presume this is IBM code) relicense it under
>> AL and contribute
>> via the IP Clearance process
>> * Do an alternative implementation, best done by someone who has not
>> seen the Eclipse code
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>>
>>> We may be talking about two different things here.
>>>
>>> Regarding the two EMF classes: BasicExtendedMetaData and
>>> XSDEcoreBuilder,
>>> here's what we did.
>>>
>>> Both of these classes (in EMF) create metadata (Types and
>>> Properties)
>>> scattered in various places in the classes. Unfortunately, for us,
>>> it does
>>> it using those evil singletons: EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX
>>> (). We
>>> asked the EMF team if they could switch this to the IOC pattern,
>>> so we
>>> could inject our SDO specific metadata factories. They said they
>>> would,
>>> but can't before EMF version 2.3 which is Java 5 dependent. Since
>>> we won't
>>> (can't) move to EMF 2.3, our interim solution was to create
>>> subclasses in
>>> Tuscany, BaseSDOExtendedMetaData and BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder, which
>>> override the methods that create metadata. The subclasses contain
>>> copies
>>> of the base method, only using a factory instance variable instead
>>> of the
>>> singleton. For example:
>>>
>>> class BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder extends XSDEcoreBuilder {
>>> protected EcoreFactory ecoreFactory;
>>>
>>> void someXSDEcoreBuilderMethod() {
>>> bla ... bla ... bla ...
>>> // replaced this line: someVariable =
>>> EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX();
>>> someVariable = ecoreFactory.createXXX();
>>> bla ... bla ... bla ..
>>> }
>>>
>>> ... etc.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> So, the question is, what kind of license do we need in these two
>>> Tuscany
>>> classes?
>>>
>>> 1. Apache.
>>> 2. Apache + Eclipse
>>> 3. Other?
>>>
>>> Currently, I think we just have #1. If anyone can provide
>>> guidance on
>>> this, it would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Frank.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/18/2007 12:33:25 PM:
>>>
>>>> Those are the ones. You said before that you thought this might be
>>>> generated but that you were sure Frank would confirm. He has not
>>>> done
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>> What seems odd to me is that if this was generated then I would
>>>> have
>>>> expected consistent text to have been produced by the generator.
>>>> Instead we have things like:
>>>>
>>>> + * $Id: BasicExtendedMetaData.java,v 1.26 2006/04/29 11:45:28
>>>> emerks
>>>> Exp $
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> + * $Id: XSDEcoreBuilder.java,v 1.71 2006/08/15 16:04:41 emerks
>>>> Exp $
>>>>
>>>> which correlate directly to headers found in files in the Eclipse
>>>> repo. This makes the provenance of the code uncertain which is
>>>> why we
>>>> need clarification of what happened.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:34 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you are freferring to commit r513560 .* *There was no code
>>>>> copied
>>>>> from eclipse. The EMF generator puts an eclipse header in to
>>>>> generated code
>>>>> by default. That code was simply the result of using that
>>>>> generator
>>>>> against
>>>>> our own schemas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Kelvin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/03/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to be a party-pooper, but what was the outcome with the code
>>>>>> copied from Eclipse?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeremy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have posted an SDO Java M3 release candidate here:
>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC1/
>>>>>>> <http://
>>>>>>> people.apache.org/%7Erobbinspg/M3-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/
>>>>>> ~robbinspg/M3-RC1/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please take a look at this and try it out, so that I can pick up
>>>>>>> any errors
>>>>>>> quickly and move towards a vote on a proper release in the short
>>>>>> term.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Kelvin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> --
>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1 (IBMers involved
with EMF code)
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Paul Golick <go...@us.ibm.com> wrote on 04/02/2007 01:23:21 PM:
[snip]
> Is it accurate to categorize the code as "common to Apache Tuscany and
to
> Eclipse EMF"? or would you prefer a different description?
We won't have exactly the same code in both projects. The two EMF classes,
described below, are "code that IBM has contributed to both Eclipse EMF
and Apache Tuscany".
Thanks,
Frank.
[snip]
> Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>
> 2007-03-22 09:01 AM
> Please respond to
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
> To
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank goodness, common sense applies :-)
>
> Now we can proceed with the release candidate.
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
> sa3ruby@gmail.com wrote on 03/21/2007 05:27:35 PM:
>
> > On 3/21/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> > > > Apache
> > > > to reuse the two EMF files in question.
> > >
> > > Thanks for confirming this.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> > > > provided in
> > > > an attachment.
> > > >
> > > > Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you
still
> > > > want
> > > > me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
> > >
> > > I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> > > described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> > > something official from IBM (Software Grant).
> >
> > I am a director of the ASF.
> >
> > Apparently the original copyright holder desires to contribute the
> > same code to two different places under two different licenses. They
> > are certainly within their rights to do so. The contribution under
> > the other license isn't particularly relevant to me. Now, concerning
> > the contribution which is presumably being made in good faith under
> > the ASF license to the Tuscany project, I see no ASF wide legal or
> > policy issue here, which means that the only remaining issue a
> > technical one, namely whether or not tuscany wishes to accept this
> > code.
> >
> > Now, if anybody has any reason to believe that the assertion of
> > authorship is false (i.e., if there are Eclipse CVS or SVN logs which
> > show contributions by others), then the issue is an entirely different
> > one...
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1 (IBMers involved
with EMF code)
Posted by Paul Golick <go...@us.ibm.com>.
Frank,
Were you the only IBM employee involved in the contribution of this code
that is common to Apache Tuscany and to Eclipse EMF?
If not, who were the other IBM employees?
If it accurate to categorize the code as "common to Apache Tuscany and to
Eclipse EMF"? or would you prefer a different description?
This will answer a question for the "enhanced pedigree review" of the
Tuscany code so that we can ship SOA Feature Pack Iteration 1.
Regards,
Paul Golick
P. O. Box 12195, Dept. 6HSA (503 D224)
3039 Cornwallis Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195
office phone: 919-543-7177
cell phone: 919-943-2578
home phone: 919-493-3570
e-mail: golick@us.ibm.com
Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>
2007-03-22 09:01 AM
Please respond to
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Thank goodness, common sense applies :-)
Now we can proceed with the release candidate.
Thanks,
Frank.
sa3ruby@gmail.com wrote on 03/21/2007 05:27:35 PM:
> On 3/21/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >
> > > I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> > > Apache
> > > to reuse the two EMF files in question.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming this.
> >
> > >
> > > I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> > > provided in
> > > an attachment.
> > >
> > > Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still
> > > want
> > > me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
> >
> > I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> > described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> > something official from IBM (Software Grant).
>
> I am a director of the ASF.
>
> Apparently the original copyright holder desires to contribute the
> same code to two different places under two different licenses. They
> are certainly within their rights to do so. The contribution under
> the other license isn't particularly relevant to me. Now, concerning
> the contribution which is presumably being made in good faith under
> the ASF license to the Tuscany project, I see no ASF wide legal or
> policy issue here, which means that the only remaining issue a
> technical one, namely whether or not tuscany wishes to accept this
> code.
>
> Now, if anybody has any reason to believe that the assertion of
> authorship is false (i.e., if there are Eclipse CVS or SVN logs which
> show contributions by others), then the issue is an entirely different
> one...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Thank goodness, common sense applies :-)
Now we can proceed with the release candidate.
Thanks,
Frank.
sa3ruby@gmail.com wrote on 03/21/2007 05:27:35 PM:
> On 3/21/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >
> > > I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> > > Apache
> > > to reuse the two EMF files in question.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming this.
> >
> > >
> > > I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> > > provided in
> > > an attachment.
> > >
> > > Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still
> > > want
> > > me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
> >
> > I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> > described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> > something official from IBM (Software Grant).
>
> I am a director of the ASF.
>
> Apparently the original copyright holder desires to contribute the
> same code to two different places under two different licenses. They
> are certainly within their rights to do so. The contribution under
> the other license isn't particularly relevant to me. Now, concerning
> the contribution which is presumably being made in good faith under
> the ASF license to the Tuscany project, I see no ASF wide legal or
> policy issue here, which means that the only remaining issue a
> technical one, namely whether or not tuscany wishes to accept this
> code.
>
> Now, if anybody has any reason to believe that the assertion of
> authorship is false (i.e., if there are Eclipse CVS or SVN logs which
> show contributions by others), then the issue is an entirely different
> one...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
On 3/21/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> > Apache
> > to reuse the two EMF files in question.
>
> Thanks for confirming this.
>
> >
> > I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> > provided in
> > an attachment.
> >
> > Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still
> > want
> > me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
>
> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
I am a director of the ASF.
Apparently the original copyright holder desires to contribute the
same code to two different places under two different licenses. They
are certainly within their rights to do so. The contribution under
the other license isn't particularly relevant to me. Now, concerning
the contribution which is presumably being made in good faith under
the ASF license to the Tuscany project, I see no ASF wide legal or
policy issue here, which means that the only remaining issue a
technical one, namely whether or not tuscany wishes to accept this
code.
Now, if anybody has any reason to believe that the assertion of
authorship is false (i.e., if there are Eclipse CVS or SVN logs which
show contributions by others), then the issue is an entirely different
one...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Ant, perhaps that is the question. I certainly don't think this is a
substantial contribution, but who can confirm that?
Frank.
"ant elder" <an...@gmail.com> wrote on 03/21/2007 02:53:10 PM:
> I think it may not be completely clear to everyone yet why this code
does
> not have to follow the IP clearance process as described at:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>
> From that link it doesn't seem completely clear when you need to follow
the
> IP clearance process or when a code attached to a JIRA can be treated
just
> as any other patch from a community member. Is the question whether or
not
> these two classes "represents a substantial contribution"?
>
> ...ant
>
> On 3/21/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe this issue is resolved. I spent a good part of the last two
days
> > chasing this down with the Lawyers to alleviate Jeremy's concern.
> >
> > Does anyone other than Jeremy believe that this issue is not already
> > resolved? If so, can you please explain exactly what else I need to
do?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>
> > 03/21/2007 01:56 PM
> > Please respond to
> > tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
> > To
> > tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >
> > > Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
> > >
> > >> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> > >> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> > >> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
> > >
> > > By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant
> > > license
> > > to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the
> > > classes. If I
> > > didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally
> > > liable.
> > > How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
> > > files?
> >
> > It isn't. And Apache has a IP Clearance process for handling them.
> > Please don't shoot the messenger.
> >
> > >
> > > What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent
> > > timeline
> > > issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN
> > > before the
> > > license was officially granted.
> >
> > The big one is that we can't release this code until this resolved.
> > --
> > Jeremy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
I think it may not be completely clear to everyone yet why this code does
not have to follow the IP clearance process as described at:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>From that link it doesn't seem completely clear when you need to follow the
IP clearance process or when a code attached to a JIRA can be treated just
as any other patch from a community member. Is the question whether or not
these two classes "represents a substantial contribution"?
...ant
On 3/21/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I believe this issue is resolved. I spent a good part of the last two days
> chasing this down with the Lawyers to alleviate Jeremy's concern.
>
> Does anyone other than Jeremy believe that this issue is not already
> resolved? If so, can you please explain exactly what else I need to do?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>
> 03/21/2007 01:56 PM
> Please respond to
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
> To
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
> >
> >> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> >> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> >> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
> >
> > By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant
> > license
> > to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the
> > classes. If I
> > didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally
> > liable.
> > How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
> > files?
>
> It isn't. And Apache has a IP Clearance process for handling them.
> Please don't shoot the messenger.
>
> >
> > What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent
> > timeline
> > issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN
> > before the
> > license was officially granted.
>
> The big one is that we can't release this code until this resolved.
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
I'd recommend asking a question on general@a.o. They would give you all
necessary guidance needed.
On 3/21/07, Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I believe this issue is resolved. I spent a good part of the last two days
> chasing this down with the Lawyers to alleviate Jeremy's concern.
>
> Does anyone other than Jeremy believe that this issue is not already
> resolved? If so, can you please explain exactly what else I need to do?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>
> 03/21/2007 01:56 PM
> Please respond to
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
>
>
> To
> tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
> >
> >> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> >> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> >> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
> >
> > By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant
> > license
> > to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the
> > classes. If I
> > didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally
> > liable.
> > How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
> > files?
>
> It isn't. And Apache has a IP Clearance process for handling them.
> Please don't shoot the messenger.
>
> >
> > What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent
> > timeline
> > issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN
> > before the
> > license was officially granted.
>
> The big one is that we can't release this code until this resolved.
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
I believe this issue is resolved. I spent a good part of the last two days
chasing this down with the Lawyers to alleviate Jeremy's concern.
Does anyone other than Jeremy believe that this issue is not already
resolved? If so, can you please explain exactly what else I need to do?
Thanks,
Frank.
Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>
03/21/2007 01:56 PM
Please respond to
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
To
tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
>
>> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
>> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
>> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
>
> By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant
> license
> to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the
> classes. If I
> didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally
> liable.
> How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
> files?
It isn't. And Apache has a IP Clearance process for handling them.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
>
> What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent
> timeline
> issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN
> before the
> license was officially granted.
The big one is that we can't release this code until this resolved.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
>
>> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
>> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
>> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
>
> By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant
> license
> to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the
> classes. If I
> didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally
> liable.
> How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
> files?
It isn't. And Apache has a IP Clearance process for handling them.
Please don't shoot the messenger.
>
> What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent
> timeline
> issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN
> before the
> license was officially granted.
The big one is that we can't release this code until this resolved.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Jeremy, I don't understand your last comment:
> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
By attaching the two files to the JIRA, and selecting the "Grant license
to ASF ..." button, I (on behalf of IBM) am contributing the classes. If I
didn't have the right to do that, I would obviously be personally liable.
How is this contribution different from any other contributed source
files?
What I was specifically asking is whether there is some stringent timeline
issue that I still need to deal with? The code had been in SVN before the
license was officially granted.
Thanks,
Frank.
Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/21/2007 12:41:29 PM:
> On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> > Apache
> > to reuse the two EMF files in question.
>
> Thanks for confirming this.
>
> >
> > I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> > provided in
> > an attachment.
> >
> > Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still
> > want
> > me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
>
> I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
> described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
> something official from IBM (Software Grant).
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to
> Apache
> to reuse the two EMF files in question.
Thanks for confirming this.
>
> I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes,
> provided in
> an attachment.
>
> Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still
> want
> me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
I can't ack this for the ASF - that has to be done by an Officer as
described in the IP Clearance process. They would probably want
something official from IBM (Software Grant).
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
I've confirmed that IBM, the copyright holder, gives permission to Apache
to reuse the two EMF files in question.
I've opened TUSCANY-1185 to contribute the two base classes, provided in
an attachment.
Jeremy, let me know if this is good enough for you, or if you still want
me to remove the Tuscany subclasses and resubmit them.
Frank.
Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com> wrote on 03/20/2007 08:37:21 AM:
> Frank,
> Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to give
> legal interpretations. However, I have heard many lawyers give talks
> on copyright :-) Based on this, I'd expect that the "new" method would
> need to follow standard legal guidelines for defence against a claim
> of copyright infringement. In the particlular case you have given,
> I don't think this would be a problem. But it is the nature of this
> beast that no precise formula could be given for where the line is.
>
> None of this would apply if the copyright holder had given permission
> to Apache to include their code and derivative works under the Apache
> license.
>
> Simon
>
> Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 06:14:58 PM:
> >
> >
> >>On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hmm, this seems like an example of where "legal red tape" may be
> >>>getting
> >>>in the way of the "spirit of reuse".
> >>
> >>One man's "spirit of reuse" is another's copyright infringement. This
> >>is not something to take lightly.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure that's true. Nobody's taking this lightly.
> >
> > In this particular case, however, both parties, the EMF contributors
at
> > Eclipse, and the Tuscany consumers (us) here at Apache agree that this
is
> > not a case of copyright infringement. So, it seems to me that a
> > light-weight process for dealing with this kind of scenario is needed.
If
> > need be, we'll pull out this code temporarily, but I'd prefer to see
some
> > sensible way to deal with it without doing that.
> >
> > I'm also still looking for an answer to my question from below: I also
> > wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed method" vs
"a
> > copied method with a change" in a subclass?
> >
> > According to the strict interpretation of the two licenses, you really
> > can't do much with EPL code at Apache. Something as trivial as
overriding
> > a base method that looks like this:
> >
> > void foo() {
> > x = 3;
> > bar();
> > }
> >
> > to set x to 4 instead of 3:
> >
> > void foo() {
> > x = 4;
> > bar();
> > }
> >
> > could be considered copyright infringement. If not, then where is the
fine
> > line?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank.
> >
> >
> >>EPL is very specific:
> >> When the Program is made available in source code form:
> >> a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
> >> b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of
> >>the Program.
> >>
> >>Distributing EPL code in source form under the Apache License is a
> >>violation of these EPL terms. Period.
> >>
> >>To distribute this code under the Apache License it needs to be
> >>relicensed by the copyright owner. This is not an ongoing
> >>contribution as covered by a CCLA but a grant of software written
> >>elsewhere to the Foundation. There is a process for this, handled by
> >>the Incubator:
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >>
> >>Another alternative might be to distribute the code in binary form.
> >>This would involve making the "necessary change" elsewhere (say at
> >>Eclipse), releasing that derivative under the EPL in binary form.
> >>Tuscany would then be able to redistribute that code in its binary
> >>form. That's a suggestion - you probably want to talk to a lawyer and
> >>I would suggest running it past legal-discuss@a.o
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here's the general problem:
> >>>
> >>>1) We need to override a base class' behavior to do something
> >>>"slightly
> >>>different".
> >>>2) Looking at the base class, we notice that it requires a tiny
> >>>change in
> >>>the middle of a medium to large sized method. We request a slight
> >>>refactoring of the base (EMF) code, which they agree to fix in
> >>>their next
> >>>version.
> >>>3) We can't move to the next version yet, so we add a copy of the
> >>>method
> >>>(with the change) in our subclass and then proceed as if it was
> >>>already in
> >>>the base class.
> >>>
> >>>Note that we really don't want to do this in the first place
> >>>because if we
> >>>later forget to remove the override and EMF fixes some other bug in
> >>>the
> >>>same method, we won't ever pick up the fix. Unfortunately, however,
we
> >>>have no choice in the short term other than to rewrite the whole
> >>>method,
> >>>but since it's intricately tied to the rest of the base class
> >>>implementation it really couldn't be much different. We could
> >>>rewrite the
> >>>entire class, but that completely defeats the purpose of reuse.
> >>>
> >>>Does anybody know how this kind of "necessary copying" is addressed?
I
> >>>also wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed
> >>>method" vs
> >>>"a copied method with a change" in a subclass? For example, what if
> >>>one of
> >>>the copied methods was only 3 lines and we changed one of them? Is
> >>>that
> >>>still a copy?
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Frank.
> >>>
> >>>Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 10:27:52 AM:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The original code here is EPL (I assume), which Apache projects can
> >>>>include in binary form but not in source form. See here for details:
> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >>>>
> >>>>We need to remove the original code from the repo. After that, there
> >>>>are two options:
> >>>>* Have the IP owner (I presume this is IBM code) relicense it under
> >>>>AL and contribute
> >>>> via the IP Clearance process
> >>>>* Do an alternative implementation, best done by someone who has not
> >>>>seen the Eclipse code
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Jeremy
> >>>>
> >>>>On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>We may be talking about two different things here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Regarding the two EMF classes: BasicExtendedMetaData and
> >>>>>XSDEcoreBuilder,
> >>>>>here's what we did.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Both of these classes (in EMF) create metadata (Types and
> >>>>>Properties)
> >>>>>scattered in various places in the classes. Unfortunately, for us,
> >>>>>it does
> >>>>>it using those evil singletons: EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX
> >>>>>(). We
> >>>>>asked the EMF team if they could switch this to the IOC pattern,
> >>>>>so we
> >>>>>could inject our SDO specific metadata factories. They said they
> >>>>>would,
> >>>>>but can't before EMF version 2.3 which is Java 5 dependent. Since
> >>>>>we won't
> >>>>>(can't) move to EMF 2.3, our interim solution was to create
> >>>>>subclasses in
> >>>>>Tuscany, BaseSDOExtendedMetaData and BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder, which
> >>>>>override the methods that create metadata. The subclasses contain
> >>>>>copies
> >>>>>of the base method, only using a factory instance variable instead
> >>>>>of the
> >>>>>singleton. For example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>class BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder extends XSDEcoreBuilder {
> >>>>> protected EcoreFactory ecoreFactory;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> void someXSDEcoreBuilderMethod() {
> >>>>> bla ... bla ... bla ...
> >>>>> // replaced this line: someVariable =
> >>>>>EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX();
> >>>>> someVariable = ecoreFactory.createXXX();
> >>>>> bla ... bla ... bla ..
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ... etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>}
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So, the question is, what kind of license do we need in these two
> >>>>>Tuscany
> >>>>>classes?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1. Apache.
> >>>>>2. Apache + Eclipse
> >>>>>3. Other?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Currently, I think we just have #1. If anyone can provide
> >>>>>guidance on
> >>>>>this, it would be much appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>Frank.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/18/2007 12:33:25 PM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Those are the ones. You said before that you thought this might be
> >>>>>>generated but that you were sure Frank would confirm. He has not
> >>>>>>done
> >>>>>>so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What seems odd to me is that if this was generated then I would
> >>>>>>have
> >>>>>>expected consistent text to have been produced by the generator.
> >>>>>>Instead we have things like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>+ * $Id: BasicExtendedMetaData.java,v 1.26 2006/04/29 11:45:28
> >>>>>>emerks
> >>>>>>Exp $
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>+ * $Id: XSDEcoreBuilder.java,v 1.71 2006/08/15 16:04:41 emerks
> >>>>>>Exp $
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>which correlate directly to headers found in files in the Eclipse
> >>>>>>repo. This makes the provenance of the code uncertain which is
> >>>>>>why we
> >>>>>>need clarification of what happened.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>--
> >>>>>>Jeremy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:34 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I think you are freferring to commit r513560 .* *There was no
code
> >>>>>>>copied
> >>>>>>>from eclipse. The EMF generator puts an eclipse header in to
> >>>>>>>generated code
> >>>>>>>by default. That code was simply the result of using that
> >>>>>>>generator
> >>>>>>>against
> >>>>>>>our own schemas.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Regards, Kelvin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 17/03/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Not to be a party-pooper, but what was the outcome with the code
> >>>>>>>>copied from Eclipse?
> >>>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>>Jeremy
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I have posted an SDO Java M3 release candidate here:
> >>>>>>>>>http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC1/
> >>>>>>>>><http://
>
>>>>>>>>>people.apache.org/%7Erobbinspg/M3-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>~robbinspg/M3-RC1/>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Please take a look at this and try it out, so that I can pick
up
> >>>>>>>>>any errors
> >>>>>>>>>quickly and move towards a vote on a proper release in the
short
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>term.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Thanks, Kelvin.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>>--
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>--
> >>>>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@hursley.ibm.com>.
Frank,
Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to give
legal interpretations. However, I have heard many lawyers give talks
on copyright :-) Based on this, I'd expect that the "new" method would
need to follow standard legal guidelines for defence against a claim
of copyright infringement. In the particlular case you have given,
I don't think this would be a problem. But it is the nature of this
beast that no precise formula could be given for where the line is.
None of this would apply if the copyright holder had given permission
to Apache to include their code and derivative works under the Apache
license.
Simon
Frank Budinsky wrote:
> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 06:14:58 PM:
>
>
>>On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hmm, this seems like an example of where "legal red tape" may be
>>>getting
>>>in the way of the "spirit of reuse".
>>
>>One man's "spirit of reuse" is another's copyright infringement. This
>>is not something to take lightly.
>
>
> I'm sure that's true. Nobody's taking this lightly.
>
> In this particular case, however, both parties, the EMF contributors at
> Eclipse, and the Tuscany consumers (us) here at Apache agree that this is
> not a case of copyright infringement. So, it seems to me that a
> light-weight process for dealing with this kind of scenario is needed. If
> need be, we'll pull out this code temporarily, but I'd prefer to see some
> sensible way to deal with it without doing that.
>
> I'm also still looking for an answer to my question from below: I also
> wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed method" vs "a
> copied method with a change" in a subclass?
>
> According to the strict interpretation of the two licenses, you really
> can't do much with EPL code at Apache. Something as trivial as overriding
> a base method that looks like this:
>
> void foo() {
> x = 3;
> bar();
> }
>
> to set x to 4 instead of 3:
>
> void foo() {
> x = 4;
> bar();
> }
>
> could be considered copyright infringement. If not, then where is the fine
> line?
>
> Thanks,
> Frank.
>
>
>>EPL is very specific:
>> When the Program is made available in source code form:
>> a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
>> b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of
>>the Program.
>>
>>Distributing EPL code in source form under the Apache License is a
>>violation of these EPL terms. Period.
>>
>>To distribute this code under the Apache License it needs to be
>>relicensed by the copyright owner. This is not an ongoing
>>contribution as covered by a CCLA but a grant of software written
>>elsewhere to the Foundation. There is a process for this, handled by
>>the Incubator:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>
>>Another alternative might be to distribute the code in binary form.
>>This would involve making the "necessary change" elsewhere (say at
>>Eclipse), releasing that derivative under the EPL in binary form.
>>Tuscany would then be able to redistribute that code in its binary
>>form. That's a suggestion - you probably want to talk to a lawyer and
>>I would suggest running it past legal-discuss@a.o
>>
>>
>>>Here's the general problem:
>>>
>>>1) We need to override a base class' behavior to do something
>>>"slightly
>>>different".
>>>2) Looking at the base class, we notice that it requires a tiny
>>>change in
>>>the middle of a medium to large sized method. We request a slight
>>>refactoring of the base (EMF) code, which they agree to fix in
>>>their next
>>>version.
>>>3) We can't move to the next version yet, so we add a copy of the
>>>method
>>>(with the change) in our subclass and then proceed as if it was
>>>already in
>>>the base class.
>>>
>>>Note that we really don't want to do this in the first place
>>>because if we
>>>later forget to remove the override and EMF fixes some other bug in
>>>the
>>>same method, we won't ever pick up the fix. Unfortunately, however, we
>>>have no choice in the short term other than to rewrite the whole
>>>method,
>>>but since it's intricately tied to the rest of the base class
>>>implementation it really couldn't be much different. We could
>>>rewrite the
>>>entire class, but that completely defeats the purpose of reuse.
>>>
>>>Does anybody know how this kind of "necessary copying" is addressed? I
>>>also wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed
>>>method" vs
>>>"a copied method with a change" in a subclass? For example, what if
>>>one of
>>>the copied methods was only 3 lines and we changed one of them? Is
>>>that
>>>still a copy?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Frank.
>>>
>>>Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 10:27:52 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The original code here is EPL (I assume), which Apache projects can
>>>>include in binary form but not in source form. See here for details:
>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>>>>
>>>>We need to remove the original code from the repo. After that, there
>>>>are two options:
>>>>* Have the IP owner (I presume this is IBM code) relicense it under
>>>>AL and contribute
>>>> via the IP Clearance process
>>>>* Do an alternative implementation, best done by someone who has not
>>>>seen the Eclipse code
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We may be talking about two different things here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regarding the two EMF classes: BasicExtendedMetaData and
>>>>>XSDEcoreBuilder,
>>>>>here's what we did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Both of these classes (in EMF) create metadata (Types and
>>>>>Properties)
>>>>>scattered in various places in the classes. Unfortunately, for us,
>>>>>it does
>>>>>it using those evil singletons: EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX
>>>>>(). We
>>>>>asked the EMF team if they could switch this to the IOC pattern,
>>>>>so we
>>>>>could inject our SDO specific metadata factories. They said they
>>>>>would,
>>>>>but can't before EMF version 2.3 which is Java 5 dependent. Since
>>>>>we won't
>>>>>(can't) move to EMF 2.3, our interim solution was to create
>>>>>subclasses in
>>>>>Tuscany, BaseSDOExtendedMetaData and BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder, which
>>>>>override the methods that create metadata. The subclasses contain
>>>>>copies
>>>>>of the base method, only using a factory instance variable instead
>>>>>of the
>>>>>singleton. For example:
>>>>>
>>>>>class BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder extends XSDEcoreBuilder {
>>>>> protected EcoreFactory ecoreFactory;
>>>>>
>>>>> void someXSDEcoreBuilderMethod() {
>>>>> bla ... bla ... bla ...
>>>>> // replaced this line: someVariable =
>>>>>EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX();
>>>>> someVariable = ecoreFactory.createXXX();
>>>>> bla ... bla ... bla ..
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> ... etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>}
>>>>>
>>>>>So, the question is, what kind of license do we need in these two
>>>>>Tuscany
>>>>>classes?
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Apache.
>>>>>2. Apache + Eclipse
>>>>>3. Other?
>>>>>
>>>>>Currently, I think we just have #1. If anyone can provide
>>>>>guidance on
>>>>>this, it would be much appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Frank.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/18/2007 12:33:25 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Those are the ones. You said before that you thought this might be
>>>>>>generated but that you were sure Frank would confirm. He has not
>>>>>>done
>>>>>>so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What seems odd to me is that if this was generated then I would
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>expected consistent text to have been produced by the generator.
>>>>>>Instead we have things like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+ * $Id: BasicExtendedMetaData.java,v 1.26 2006/04/29 11:45:28
>>>>>>emerks
>>>>>>Exp $
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+ * $Id: XSDEcoreBuilder.java,v 1.71 2006/08/15 16:04:41 emerks
>>>>>>Exp $
>>>>>>
>>>>>>which correlate directly to headers found in files in the Eclipse
>>>>>>repo. This makes the provenance of the code uncertain which is
>>>>>>why we
>>>>>>need clarification of what happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Jeremy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:34 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think you are freferring to commit r513560 .* *There was no code
>>>>>>>copied
>>>>>>>from eclipse. The EMF generator puts an eclipse header in to
>>>>>>>generated code
>>>>>>>by default. That code was simply the result of using that
>>>>>>>generator
>>>>>>>against
>>>>>>>our own schemas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards, Kelvin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 17/03/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not to be a party-pooper, but what was the outcome with the code
>>>>>>>>copied from Eclipse?
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Jeremy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have posted an SDO Java M3 release candidate here:
>>>>>>>>>http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC1/
>>>>>>>>><http://
>>>>>>>>>people.apache.org/%7Erobbinspg/M3-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>~robbinspg/M3-RC1/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please take a look at this and try it out, so that I can pick up
>>>>>>>>>any errors
>>>>>>>>>quickly and move towards a vote on a proper release in the short
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks, Kelvin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: SDO IP Issues, was: SDO Java M3 Release Candidate RC1
Posted by Frank Budinsky <fr...@ca.ibm.com>.
Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 06:14:58 PM:
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
>
> > Hmm, this seems like an example of where "legal red tape" may be
> > getting
> > in the way of the "spirit of reuse".
>
> One man's "spirit of reuse" is another's copyright infringement. This
> is not something to take lightly.
I'm sure that's true. Nobody's taking this lightly.
In this particular case, however, both parties, the EMF contributors at
Eclipse, and the Tuscany consumers (us) here at Apache agree that this is
not a case of copyright infringement. So, it seems to me that a
light-weight process for dealing with this kind of scenario is needed. If
need be, we'll pull out this code temporarily, but I'd prefer to see some
sensible way to deal with it without doing that.
I'm also still looking for an answer to my question from below: I also
wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed method" vs "a
copied method with a change" in a subclass?
According to the strict interpretation of the two licenses, you really
can't do much with EPL code at Apache. Something as trivial as overriding
a base method that looks like this:
void foo() {
x = 3;
bar();
}
to set x to 4 instead of 3:
void foo() {
x = 4;
bar();
}
could be considered copyright infringement. If not, then where is the fine
line?
Thanks,
Frank.
>
> EPL is very specific:
> When the Program is made available in source code form:
> a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
> b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of
> the Program.
>
> Distributing EPL code in source form under the Apache License is a
> violation of these EPL terms. Period.
>
> To distribute this code under the Apache License it needs to be
> relicensed by the copyright owner. This is not an ongoing
> contribution as covered by a CCLA but a grant of software written
> elsewhere to the Foundation. There is a process for this, handled by
> the Incubator:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Another alternative might be to distribute the code in binary form.
> This would involve making the "necessary change" elsewhere (say at
> Eclipse), releasing that derivative under the EPL in binary form.
> Tuscany would then be able to redistribute that code in its binary
> form. That's a suggestion - you probably want to talk to a lawyer and
> I would suggest running it past legal-discuss@a.o
>
> > Here's the general problem:
> >
> > 1) We need to override a base class' behavior to do something
> > "slightly
> > different".
> > 2) Looking at the base class, we notice that it requires a tiny
> > change in
> > the middle of a medium to large sized method. We request a slight
> > refactoring of the base (EMF) code, which they agree to fix in
> > their next
> > version.
> > 3) We can't move to the next version yet, so we add a copy of the
> > method
> > (with the change) in our subclass and then proceed as if it was
> > already in
> > the base class.
> >
> > Note that we really don't want to do this in the first place
> > because if we
> > later forget to remove the override and EMF fixes some other bug in
> > the
> > same method, we won't ever pick up the fix. Unfortunately, however, we
> > have no choice in the short term other than to rewrite the whole
> > method,
> > but since it's intricately tied to the rest of the base class
> > implementation it really couldn't be much different. We could
> > rewrite the
> > entire class, but that completely defeats the purpose of reuse.
> >
> > Does anybody know how this kind of "necessary copying" is addressed? I
> > also wonder where is the fine line between providing a "changed
> > method" vs
> > "a copied method with a change" in a subclass? For example, what if
> > one of
> > the copied methods was only 3 lines and we changed one of them? Is
> > that
> > still a copy?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank.
> >
> > Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/19/2007 10:27:52 AM:
> >
> >> The original code here is EPL (I assume), which Apache projects can
> >> include in binary form but not in source form. See here for details:
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> >>
> >> We need to remove the original code from the repo. After that, there
> >> are two options:
> >> * Have the IP owner (I presume this is IBM code) relicense it under
> >> AL and contribute
> >> via the IP Clearance process
> >> * Do an alternative implementation, best done by someone who has not
> >> seen the Eclipse code
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jeremy
> >>
> >> On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Frank Budinsky wrote:
> >>
> >>> We may be talking about two different things here.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the two EMF classes: BasicExtendedMetaData and
> >>> XSDEcoreBuilder,
> >>> here's what we did.
> >>>
> >>> Both of these classes (in EMF) create metadata (Types and
> >>> Properties)
> >>> scattered in various places in the classes. Unfortunately, for us,
> >>> it does
> >>> it using those evil singletons: EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX
> >>> (). We
> >>> asked the EMF team if they could switch this to the IOC pattern,
> >>> so we
> >>> could inject our SDO specific metadata factories. They said they
> >>> would,
> >>> but can't before EMF version 2.3 which is Java 5 dependent. Since
> >>> we won't
> >>> (can't) move to EMF 2.3, our interim solution was to create
> >>> subclasses in
> >>> Tuscany, BaseSDOExtendedMetaData and BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder, which
> >>> override the methods that create metadata. The subclasses contain
> >>> copies
> >>> of the base method, only using a factory instance variable instead
> >>> of the
> >>> singleton. For example:
> >>>
> >>> class BaseSDOXSDEcoreBuilder extends XSDEcoreBuilder {
> >>> protected EcoreFactory ecoreFactory;
> >>>
> >>> void someXSDEcoreBuilderMethod() {
> >>> bla ... bla ... bla ...
> >>> // replaced this line: someVariable =
> >>> EcoreFactory.eINSTANCE.createXXX();
> >>> someVariable = ecoreFactory.createXXX();
> >>> bla ... bla ... bla ..
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> ... etc.
> >>>
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> So, the question is, what kind of license do we need in these two
> >>> Tuscany
> >>> classes?
> >>>
> >>> 1. Apache.
> >>> 2. Apache + Eclipse
> >>> 3. Other?
> >>>
> >>> Currently, I think we just have #1. If anyone can provide
> >>> guidance on
> >>> this, it would be much appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Frank.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote on 03/18/2007 12:33:25 PM:
> >>>
> >>>> Those are the ones. You said before that you thought this might be
> >>>> generated but that you were sure Frank would confirm. He has not
> >>>> done
> >>>> so.
> >>>>
> >>>> What seems odd to me is that if this was generated then I would
> >>>> have
> >>>> expected consistent text to have been produced by the generator.
> >>>> Instead we have things like:
> >>>>
> >>>> + * $Id: BasicExtendedMetaData.java,v 1.26 2006/04/29 11:45:28
> >>>> emerks
> >>>> Exp $
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>> + * $Id: XSDEcoreBuilder.java,v 1.71 2006/08/15 16:04:41 emerks
> >>>> Exp $
> >>>>
> >>>> which correlate directly to headers found in files in the Eclipse
> >>>> repo. This makes the provenance of the code uncertain which is
> >>>> why we
> >>>> need clarification of what happened.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jeremy
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:34 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think you are freferring to commit r513560 .* *There was no code
> >>>>> copied
> >>>>> from eclipse. The EMF generator puts an eclipse header in to
> >>>>> generated code
> >>>>> by default. That code was simply the result of using that
> >>>>> generator
> >>>>> against
> >>>>> our own schemas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards, Kelvin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 17/03/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to be a party-pooper, but what was the outcome with the code
> >>>>>> copied from Eclipse?
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Jeremy
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, kelvin goodson wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have posted an SDO Java M3 release candidate here:
> >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~kelvingoodson/sdo_java/M3/RC1/
> >>>>>>> <http://
> >>>>>>> people.apache.org/%7Erobbinspg/M3-RC1/<http://people.apache.org/
> >>>>>> ~robbinspg/M3-RC1/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please take a look at this and try it out, so that I can pick up
> >>>>>>> any errors
> >>>>>>> quickly and move towards a vote on a proper release in the short
> >>>>>> term.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks, Kelvin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> --
> >
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> --
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org