You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2008/03/26 08:28:43 UTC
Summarizing how we dot the i's
In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
full picture of what we do.
Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
Any thoughts on:
a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
living in ~foo.
b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
just can't find?]
c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
anything.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather
>>> than
>>> living in ~foo.
>>> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one
>>> that I
>>> just can't find?]
>>> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot
>>> of
>>> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not
>>> overstating
>>> anything.
>>
>> One scenario not covered - and perhaps its not permitted - what about
>> if someone wants to copy some code from another source that has a
>> permissable license? For example Spring is licensed under AL 2.0 - so
>> in theory I could copy some Spring code into an ASF project with no
>> problem. I guess the answer would be "go ask the spring people to
>> sign
>> a CLA" - but what happens if I get no response from Spring?
>> License-wise this is OK - but I guess/assume policy wise its not
>> allowed by the ASF?
>
> It remains under the Spring instance of the AL 2.0 license. So is
> covered by the third party bit. Might need mentioning.
>
>>
A CLA, or grant, simply allows the ASF to (re)license the s/w
under the AL; If the code is already under the AL, or a similar
license, a CLA/grant is not required since we do not need
to relicense the code, since it is already compatible. We simply
continue to honor the license, with whatever "other" conditions
may apply (like noting in NOTICE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> > > the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> > > anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> > > full picture of what we do.
> > >
> > > Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on:
> > >
> > > a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> > > living in ~foo.
> > > b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> > > just can't find?]
> > > c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> > > work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> > > anything.
> >
> > One scenario not covered - and perhaps its not permitted - what about
> > if someone wants to copy some code from another source that has a
> > permissable license? For example Spring is licensed under AL 2.0 - so
> > in theory I could copy some Spring code into an ASF project with no
> > problem. I guess the answer would be "go ask the spring people to sign
> > a CLA" - but what happens if I get no response from Spring?
> > License-wise this is OK - but I guess/assume policy wise its not
> > allowed by the ASF?
>
> It remains under the Spring instance of the AL 2.0 license. So is
> covered by the third party bit. Might need mentioning.
To reinforce Henri's point: we do *NOT* need a CLA. We need a
license. For an original work by a developer, we need a license from
that developer (i.e., a CLA). For an existing project licensed under
the AL 2.0 we have a perfectly acceptable license.
What we would need in that case is clearance:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Niall Pemberton
<ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> > the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> > anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> > full picture of what we do.
> >
> > Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
> >
> > Any thoughts on:
> >
> > a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> > living in ~foo.
> > b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> > just can't find?]
> > c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> > work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> > anything.
>
> One scenario not covered - and perhaps its not permitted - what about
> if someone wants to copy some code from another source that has a
> permissable license? For example Spring is licensed under AL 2.0 - so
> in theory I could copy some Spring code into an ASF project with no
> problem. I guess the answer would be "go ask the spring people to sign
> a CLA" - but what happens if I get no response from Spring?
> License-wise this is OK - but I guess/assume policy wise its not
> allowed by the ASF?
It remains under the Spring instance of the AL 2.0 license. So is
covered by the third party bit. Might need mentioning.
> A couple of other comments about the Incubator references in the
> "Outgoing code" section - which I think for anyone not aware of what
> the incubator does may be confusing/distracting:
> 1) I would remove the clarification that about the IPMC being the
> releasing body from the main paragraph and make it a sub-note
> 2) I don't think its necessary to metion that the RAT tool is an
> incubating podling
Sounds good. Didn't want to imply RAT was a full project yet.
> Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
> projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
> checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
Yep. We also technically accept them on the mailing list, though the
general approach there means they're going to remain pretty small.
I'd still like to see us either add a checkbox to Bugzilla, or remove
it from JIRA.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
The discussion was rekindled in another thread
and is referred to from http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-33
-David
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008, David Crossley wrote:
> On Mar 28 2008 David Crossley wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > >
> > > Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
> > > projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
> > > checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
> >
> > It is my understanding that any contribution, via either
> > mailing list or an issue tracker, is for inclusion unless
> > the originator explicitly says "Not a contribution".
> >
> > In fact, the LICENSE-2.0 text explicitly says so under
> > the definition of Contribution and goes further. It is
> > dangerous to try to summarise these things.
> >
> > That Jira checkbox intends to makes it easier for them
> > to specify not a contribution. I find it to be misleading.
> > It should be the other way around, and it should link
> > directly to the definition of contribution. Why do we need
> > a checkbox at all? They can say so in their comment.
>
> There was no response to this issue, unless it happened in
> a new thread that i missed. Would someone please reply
> to tell me if i am mistaken.
>
> -David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
On Mar 28 2008 David Crossley wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >
> > Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
> > projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
> > checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
>
> It is my understanding that any contribution, via either
> mailing list or an issue tracker, is for inclusion unless
> the originator explicitly says "Not a contribution".
>
> In fact, the LICENSE-2.0 text explicitly says so under
> the definition of Contribution and goes further. It is
> dangerous to try to summarise these things.
>
> That Jira checkbox intends to makes it easier for them
> to specify not a contribution. I find it to be misleading.
> It should be the other way around, and it should link
> directly to the definition of contribution. Why do we need
> a checkbox at all? They can say so in their comment.
There was no response to this issue, unless it happened in
a new thread that i missed. Would someone please reply
to tell me if i am mistaken.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
> projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
> checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
It is my understanding that any contribution, via either
mailing list or an issue tracker, is for inclusion unless
the originator explicitly says "Not a contribution".
In fact, the LICENSE-2.0 text explicitly says so under
the definition of Contribution and goes further. It is
dangerous to try to summarise these things.
That Jira checkbox intends to makes it easier for them
to specify not a contribution. I find it to be misleading.
It should be the other way around, and it should link
directly to the definition of contribution. Why do we need
a checkbox at all? They can say so in their comment.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> full picture of what we do.
>
> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
>
> Any thoughts on:
>
> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> living in ~foo.
> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> just can't find?]
> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> anything.
One scenario not covered - and perhaps its not permitted - what about
if someone wants to copy some code from another source that has a
permissable license? For example Spring is licensed under AL 2.0 - so
in theory I could copy some Spring code into an ASF project with no
problem. I guess the answer would be "go ask the spring people to sign
a CLA" - but what happens if I get no response from Spring?
License-wise this is OK - but I guess/assume policy wise its not
allowed by the ASF?
A couple of other comments about the Incubator references in the
"Outgoing code" section - which I think for anyone not aware of what
the incubator does may be confusing/distracting:
1) I would remove the clarification that about the IPMC being the
releasing body from the main paragraph and make it a sub-note
2) I don't think its necessary to metion that the RAT tool is an
incubating podling
Also Point IV only refers only to JIRA issue tracking. We still have
projects using Bugzilla where AFAIK there is no 'Grant license to ASF"
checkbox - but we still accept contributions that way.
Niall
> Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
What Sam says :) Maybe worth adding that the reference for releases are the
source distribution, even though binary distributions are usually provided
as well for convenience? And building this page is a very good idea.
Thanks!
Matthieu
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> > the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> > anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> > full picture of what we do.
> >
> > Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we
> do.
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Ebayard/process-draft.html>
>
> Excellent start! Thanks!
>
> The only outright bug that I see relates to (iii). Every committer
> must have signed an ICLA prior to obtaining an id. Frequent
> contributors may also be asked to sign an ICLA.
>
> > Any thoughts on:
> >
> > a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> > living in ~foo.
>
> +1
>
> One done, I'll also redirect ~rubys/3party.html to there.
>
> > b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> > just can't find?]
>
> I am not aware of such a page.
>
> > c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> > work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> > anything.
>
> Other things worth pointing out:
>
> 1) Small contributions may also come in through the mailing list. See
> second paragraph of the section 1 of the ICLA. We accept such
> contributions, however, without an ICLA.
> 2) Sections 4 and 6 of the ICLA form are worth summarizing and
> highlighting here.
> 3) I would recommend rewording the text concerning CCLAs to match what
> section 4 of the ICLA says.
> 4) Every ASF project is set up to email commit diffs back to a project
> mailing list. The PMC is responsible for ensuring that such changes
> are reviewed for license issues.
>
> Miinor:
>
> Go ahead and link to the http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas.
>
> Other:
>
> You used the word large, I used the word small. A brief discussion of
> those terms is warranted.
>
> Patents and trademarks probably deserve similar pages. The PRC
> largely handles issues of protecting our marks.
>
> > Hen
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
>> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
>> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
>> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
>> full picture of what we do.
>>
>> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
>
> Excellent start! Thanks!
>
> The only outright bug that I see relates to (iii). Every committer
> must have signed an ICLA prior to obtaining an id. Frequent
> contributors may also be asked to sign an ICLA.
Changed to:
"Individuals who want to directly contribute to the project sign a "
(from Individuals who will repeatedly commit to the codebase).
I've added:
"Usually these contributions take the effect of commits to the source
code repository, another example is for access to updating the website
through a content management system." to the end, but I'm not sure of
the use cases for frequent contributors being asked to sign an ICLA
for other reasons.
>> Any thoughts on:
>>
>> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
>> living in ~foo.
>
> +1
>
> One done, I'll also redirect ~rubys/3party.html to there.
It's there - go ahead and move 3party in.
>> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
>> just can't find?]
>
> I am not aware of such a page.
>
>> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
>> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
>> anything.
>
> Other things worth pointing out:
>
> 1) Small contributions may also come in through the mailing list. See
> second paragraph of the section 1 of the ICLA. We accept such
> contributions, however, without an ICLA.
Mailing list added. I don't see how the ICLA makes a huge difference
here - the process of a patch arriving at the ASF is of more interest
I think than the development of new code amongst committers (which is
what the ICLA is presumably covering for a mailing list).
> 2) Sections 4 and 6 of the ICLA form are worth summarizing and
> highlighting here.
I'd rather not put too much in. It's process rather than justification.
> 3) I would recommend rewording the text concerning CCLAs to match what
> section 4 of the ICLA says.
Modified accordingly.
> 4) Every ASF project is set up to email commit diffs back to a project
> mailing list. The PMC is responsible for ensuring that such changes
> are reviewed for license issues.
Done.
>
> Miinor:
>
> Go ahead and link to the http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas.
Done.
> Other:
>
> You used the word large, I used the word small. A brief discussion of
> those terms is warranted.
Yeah. In fact I use large and small now. I have three levels:
1) Large. Software grant.
2) Normal. JIRA patch checkbox or statement from developer to the same
effect in bugzilla/mailing list.
3) Small. Offered patch that doesn't provide any explicit permission.
> Patents and trademarks probably deserve similar pages. The PRC
> largely handles issues of protecting our marks.
We need a Trademark policy page, but that's a different matter. In
this case I think a line could be added regarding trademarks and the
incubator - that we look for such things when starting new projects.
On patents - I'm not sure if there's anything to say. If we are made
aware of a potential issue, we investigate it.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> full picture of what we do.
>
> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
Excellent start! Thanks!
The only outright bug that I see relates to (iii). Every committer
must have signed an ICLA prior to obtaining an id. Frequent
contributors may also be asked to sign an ICLA.
> Any thoughts on:
>
> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> living in ~foo.
+1
One done, I'll also redirect ~rubys/3party.html to there.
> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> just can't find?]
I am not aware of such a page.
> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> anything.
Other things worth pointing out:
1) Small contributions may also come in through the mailing list. See
second paragraph of the section 1 of the ICLA. We accept such
contributions, however, without an ICLA.
2) Sections 4 and 6 of the ICLA form are worth summarizing and
highlighting here.
3) I would recommend rewording the text concerning CCLAs to match what
section 4 of the ICLA says.
4) Every ASF project is set up to email commit diffs back to a project
mailing list. The PMC is responsible for ensuring that such changes
are reviewed for license issues.
Miinor:
Go ahead and link to the http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas.
Other:
You used the word large, I used the word small. A brief discussion of
those terms is warranted.
Patents and trademarks probably deserve similar pages. The PRC
largely handles issues of protecting our marks.
> Hen
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:00 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT should be more prominent]
Done.
> I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between 1 and 2.
> "New project joining Apache" - "join" implies to me that the project
> already exists outside Apache and therefore may have lots of code.
Usually it does. I'll change it to 'Existing third party project joining Apache'
> Since the page mentions ECCN in passing, perhaps the README file
> should be mentioned in the outgoing code section
Added, along with a link to the crypto process.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
[DRAFTDRAFTDRAFT should be more prominent]
I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between 1 and 2.
"New project joining Apache" - "join" implies to me that the project
already exists outside Apache and therefore may have lots of code.
Since the page mentions ECCN in passing, perhaps the README file
should be mentioned in the outgoing code section
On 29/05/2008, Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The first round of changes is complete Larry (sorry about the delay, a
> baby happened :) ).
>
> Feel free to tear it apart:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > Glad you were there to hear the question, Hen! I have never seen this
> > process fully described with respect to the legal interactions of CLAs,
> > licenses, code grants, etc., to result in secure and trusted Apache
> > products. Your draft is a great start. I look forward to reviewing after
> > others have commented. /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
> >> Yandell
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:29 AM
> >> To: Legal Discuss
> >> Subject: Summarizing how we dot the i's
> >>
> >> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> >> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> >> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> >> full picture of what we do.
> >>
> >> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on:
> >>
> >> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> >> living in ~foo.
> >> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> >> just can't find?]
> >> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> >> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> >> anything.
> >>
> >> Hen
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> >> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> >> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> >> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> >> official ASF policies and documents.
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
The first round of changes is complete Larry (sorry about the delay, a
baby happened :) ).
Feel free to tear it apart:
http://www.apache.org/legal/drafts/process-draft.html
Hen
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Glad you were there to hear the question, Hen! I have never seen this
> process fully described with respect to the legal interactions of CLAs,
> licenses, code grants, etc., to result in secure and trusted Apache
> products. Your draft is a great start. I look forward to reviewing after
> others have commented. /Larry
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
>> Yandell
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:29 AM
>> To: Legal Discuss
>> Subject: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>>
>> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
>> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
>> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
>> full picture of what we do.
>>
>> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
>>
>> Any thoughts on:
>>
>> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
>> living in ~foo.
>> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
>> just can't find?]
>> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
>> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
>> anything.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Glad you were there to hear the question, Hen! I have never seen this
process fully described with respect to the legal interactions of CLAs,
licenses, code grants, etc., to result in secure and trusted Apache
products. Your draft is a great start. I look forward to reviewing after
others have commented. /Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri
> Yandell
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:29 AM
> To: Legal Discuss
> Subject: Summarizing how we dot the i's
>
> In Larry's talk today at OSBC, the subject of what Apache do beyond
> the usual level of a SF.net project came up and I didn't think we had
> anything on a single page that someone could be pointed to to get the
> full picture of what we do.
>
> Here's a draft, very very weak now I'm sure, listing the bits that we do.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~bayard/process-draft.html
>
> Any thoughts on:
>
> a) Adding a drafts/ directory to SVN to put this stuff in rather than
> living in ~foo.
> b) Whether this page should exist? [maybe there already is one that I
> just can't find?]
> c) What needs to be improved on this page. I'm sure it needs a lot of
> work to i) get it all in there and ii) make sure we're not overstating
> anything.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Amen!
- -- dims
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
| On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
|
|> ... c) What needs to be improved on this page....
|
| Although it's not a legal issue, it might be good to add the the ASF
| is only interested in incoming code that will be actively maintained,
| as opposed to dumps of dead code.
|
| -Bertrand
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
| only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
| constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
| and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
| official ASF policies and documents.
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
| For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFH7Q6wgNg6eWEDv1kRAifOAKCFhTrHN2ek37OGPlb0b/0t8UgBIACgq4hQ
WKZ8GvlXG8cIpLk/iZ+ZKc8=
=rWdo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Summarizing how we dot the i's
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> ... c) What needs to be improved on this page....
Although it's not a legal issue, it might be good to add the the ASF
is only interested in incoming code that will be actively maintained,
as opposed to dumps of dead code.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org