You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2006/08/03 23:32:13 UTC
Re: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific objection
is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the
proposal.
The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are
measured on an individual basis and individual merit.
This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate participation
by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and conveys
the wrong message for an ASF project.
I have no objection to that standards committee growing more corporate members.
But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and formative
input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not acceptable.
If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions merits
participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct involvement
as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an individual
contributor.
The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working
group."
is an Oxymoron.
This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented, and that
is not what the ASF does. If this can be addressed, my opinion of this effort
is otherwise without issues. One alternative is to modify this as I hint at
above. The other alternative is to determine the specific standards body first
and vote participation up or down based on the body selected.
Bill
Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
> for accepting the project for incubation.
"a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project having signed
the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification working group
through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides a license
to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the
specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely open and
royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working group.
On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure
that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as
posted in specifications.
The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP specification
page of any of the members as listed above."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific objection
> is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the
> proposal.
>
> The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are
> measured on an individual basis and individual merit.
>
> This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate participation
> by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and conveys
> the wrong message for an ASF project.
>
> I have no objection to that standards committee growing more corporate members.
> But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and formative
> input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not acceptable.
> If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions merits
> participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct involvement
> as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an individual
> contributor.
>
> The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working
> group."
>
> is an Oxymoron.
>
> This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented, and that
> is not what the ASF does. If this can be addressed, my opinion of this effort
> is otherwise without issues. One alternative is to modify this as I hint at
> above. The other alternative is to determine the specific standards body first
> and vote participation up or down based on the body selected.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
>> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
>> for accepting the project for incubation.
>
> "a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project having signed
> the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification working group
> through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides a license
> to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the
> specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely open and
> royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working group.
> On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure
> that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as
> posted in specifications.
>
> The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP specification
> page of any of the members as listed above."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> (Correction)
> Looking, at this further the the CCLA is just concerned about IP, I might have
> miss-read and miss-stated. No need to start a thread based on my miss-read.
Right. The CCLA exists to *protect* that very same individual-contributor
orientation of the ASF. No matter how we protest, some people's contributions
will always be work-product, and unless they negotiate their contracts to
clearly provide for outside contributions to open source, the CCLA is our
vehicle to facilitate the company's employees' contributions to the ASF.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
(Correction)
Looking, at this further the the CCLA is just concerned about IP, I
might have
miss-read and miss-stated. No need to start a thread based on my miss-read.
and to
If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions
merits
participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct
involvement
as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an
individual
contributor.
I would love this.
Regards
Carl.
Carl Trieloff wrote:
> The ASF does not recognize corporate members;
>
>
> Incorrect - Apace has a CCLA, and requires your employer to sign it
>
> From icla "
>
> For the purposes of this definition,
> "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
> direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
> otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
> outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity."
>
> and from ccla "
> This version of the Agreement allows an entity (the "Corporation") to
> submit Contributions to the Foundation, to authorize Contributions
> submitted by its designated employees to the Foundation, and to grant
> copyright and patent licenses thereto."
>
>
> ...
>
> all of our contributions are
> measured on an individual basis and individual merit
>
> correct.
>
> This mail seems to imply that Apache does not require employer to sign
> the CCLA, however I have first had experience that the ASF does
> require this.
> It seems that the objection is that I chose to be up-front write this
> down, even
> though the practice is the same at Apache. Without the CCLA there
> would no patient and
> copyright grants if you are not self employed and just about every
> employer
> would have claims on Apache code. Thus from a IP perspective, you have to
> recognize the employer. Key point - contributions - individual ICLA.
> IP - need employer
> CCLA.
>
> Hope that clears it up, regards
> Carl.
>
>
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific
>> objection
>> is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise
>> objectionable in the
>> proposal.
>>
>> The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our
>> contributions are
>> measured on an individual basis and individual merit.
>>
>> This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate
>> participation
>> by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and
>> conveys
>> the wrong message for an ASF project.
>>
>> I have no objection to that standards committee growing more
>> corporate members.
>> But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and
>> formative
>> input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not
>> acceptable.
>> If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions
>> merits
>> participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct
>> involvement
>> as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an
>> individual
>> contributor.
>>
>> The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an
>> individual has shown
>> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the
>> specification,
>> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the
>> work can
>> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification
>> working
>> group."
>>
>> is an Oxymoron.
>>
>> This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented,
>> and that
>> is not what the ASF does. If this can be addressed, my opinion of
>> this effort
>> is otherwise without issues. One alternative is to modify this as I
>> hint at
>> above. The other alternative is to determine the specific standards
>> body first
>> and vote participation up or down based on the body selected.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
>>> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
>>> for accepting the project for incubation.
>>>
>>
>> "a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project
>> having signed
>> the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification
>> working group
>> through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides
>> a license
>> to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the
>> specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely
>> open and
>> royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has
>> shown
>> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the
>> specification,
>> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the
>> work can
>> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification
>> working group.
>> On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to
>> make sure
>> that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the
>> work as
>> posted in specifications.
>>
>> The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP
>> specification
>> page of any of the members as listed above."
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Accept Glasgow into Incubator - Spec Terms
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
The ASF does not recognize corporate members;
Incorrect - Apace has a CCLA, and requires your employer to sign it
From icla "
For the purposes of this definition,
"control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity."
and from ccla "
This version of the Agreement allows an entity (the "Corporation") to
submit Contributions to the Foundation, to authorize Contributions
submitted by its designated employees to the Foundation, and to grant
copyright and patent licenses thereto."
...
all of our contributions are
measured on an individual basis and individual merit
correct.
This mail seems to imply that Apache does not require employer to sign
the CCLA, however I have first had experience that the ASF does require
this.
It seems that the objection is that I chose to be up-front write this
down, even
though the practice is the same at Apache. Without the CCLA there would
no patient and
copyright grants if you are not self employed and just about every employer
would have claims on Apache code. Thus from a IP perspective, you have to
recognize the employer. Key point - contributions - individual ICLA. IP
- need employer
CCLA.
Hope that clears it up, regards
Carl.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm sorry, but respectfully -1 this proposal as written. My specific objection
> is to the language below, I don't see anything otherwise objectionable in the
> proposal.
>
> The ASF does not recognize corporate members; all of our contributions are
> measured on an individual basis and individual merit.
>
> This proposal under the "Mechanisms for Feedback" and ultimate participation
> by the appropriate parties sends us down entirely the wrong track and conveys
> the wrong message for an ASF project.
>
> I have no objection to that standards committee growing more corporate members.
> But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and formative
> input into the specification, the way this section is phrased is not acceptable.
> If the contributor wish, and if under these terms their contributions merits
> participation, that contributor should either lead the ASF's direct involvement
> as the ASF spec liason (much as we've done within the JCP) or as an individual
> contributor.
>
> The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working
> group."
>
> is an Oxymoron.
>
> This section of the proposal below is entirely corporate-oriented, and that
> is not what the ASF does. If this can be addressed, my opinion of this effort
> is otherwise without issues. One alternative is to modify this as I hint at
> above. The other alternative is to determine the specific standards body first
> and vote participation up or down based on the body selected.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> Cliff Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I believe all open questions about the Glasgow proposal (originally
>> submitted as "Blaze") have now been addressed enough to call a vote
>> for accepting the project for incubation.
>>
>
> "a.) In the same way anyone can issue a JIRA on any Apache project having signed
> the Apache CLA, anyone can issue a “JIRA” to the specification working group
> through the RLA (Reviewer License Agreement). This agreement provides a license
> to that IP so that the specification team can incorporate it and the
> specifaction as they like and the specifications can remain entirely open and
> royalty free. b.) In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has shown
> understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification,
> a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work can
> be initiated to have that parties Employer join the specification working group.
> On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an agreement to make sure
> that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent licenses to the work as
> posted in specifications.
>
> The Reviewer License Agreement (RLA) can be viewed from the AMQP specification
> page of any of the members as listed above."
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>