You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> on 2012/02/27 16:37:36 UTC
Committers' hobby projects
Several times, particularly in the Commons community, this type of
issue has come up: To be as concrete as possible, an existing ASF
committer has a hobby project hosted at github, and decides that the
project would make a good Commons component. I assert that one of the
following is true:
A. Because the sole author and copyright holder has an ICLA on file
he can simply add his code within the established rules of the target
TLP, presuming he has the necessary commit karma.
B. Because the code has "seen the light of day" outside the ASF a
software grant must be filed.
Which is it?
Thanks,
Matt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
Might as well be
C The committer should first convert its Github stuff into a labs
project to allow for easy
going on into either direction.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Several times, particularly in the Commons community, this type of
> issue has come up: To be as concrete as possible, an existing ASF
> committer has a hobby project hosted at github, and decides that the
> project would make a good Commons component. I assert that one of the
> following is true:
>
> A. Because the sole author and copyright holder has an ICLA on file
> he can simply add his code within the established rules of the target
> TLP, presuming he has the necessary commit karma.
> B. Because the code has "seen the light of day" outside the ASF a
> software grant must be filed.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
--
"Bildung kommt von Bildschirm und nicht von Buch, sonst hieße es ja Buchung."
Dieter Hildebrandt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Benson Margulies
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With all due respect, I think that this thread is mixing a legal issue
> with a community management issue.
>
> From a legal standpoint, Roy's point is that a committer with an ICLA
> can contribute code that has lived on github like he or she could
> contribute any other code. In contributing it, he or she is asserting
> that it is entirely his or her own work. If other people have had
> commit rights, then we've got a more complex situation, and clearance
> comes into play.
Agreed that "single committer" is more the distinguishing
characteristic than "previously published".
A commit that states it is "all my work" is sufficient.
Once there are multiple people in play, then clearance comes into
play. Somebody needs to do the analysis that demonstrates that
n-ICLAs (and/or SGs, or possibly with additional CCLAs) is sufficient,
and to document that result.
That's the intent of the "short form".
> From a community standpoint, single giant commits can be
> anti-community, since they interfere with incrementalism and
> supervision. However, it's for each community to deal with this. For
> something like commons, which is made up of a collection of
> medium-sized relatively independent modules, the PMC might be
> perfectly comfortable with discussion and review followed by a giant
> commit.
Valid concerns, something for the PMCs to watch for and manage. (to
be read as: not a Legal Affairs concern)
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
With all due respect, I think that this thread is mixing a legal issue
with a community management issue.
>From a legal standpoint, Roy's point is that a committer with an ICLA
can contribute code that has lived on github like he or she could
contribute any other code. In contributing it, he or she is asserting
that it is entirely his or her own work. If other people have had
commit rights, then we've got a more complex situation, and clearance
comes into play.
>From a community standpoint, single giant commits can be
anti-community, since they interfere with incrementalism and
supervision. However, it's for each community to deal with this. For
something like commons, which is made up of a collection of
medium-sized relatively independent modules, the PMC might be
perfectly comfortable with discussion and review followed by a giant
commit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/28/2012 11:19 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> There is technical, and there is social.
>
> Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It is a way for
> people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it before, on several occasions.
So... we all agree that there are social complications.
Can we also all agree that these are not legal complications, and the valid
*legal* concern in the example given would be 1) did the author previously
grant an exclusive license? And 2) does the author have the right to grant
the AL? (As opposed to a work for hire where the client has not shared the
ownership with the developer, and not granted AL.)
Seems like comdev@ is the place to take non-legal, social concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
> social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
> We've seen it before, on several occasions.
>
> Examples please???? /Larry
>
>
Alex's narrative was the illustration of this. In any event, social
issues aren't legal issues, and in the context of Commons, such a
donated component would come through its sandbox and would never be
released unless the PMC felt comfortable with its level of support, by
which I would consider social concerns mitigated.
Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:20 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: RE: Committers' hobby projects
>
>
>
> There is technical, and there is social.
>
> Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It is
> a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it before, on
> several occasions.
>
> On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
> functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
> exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
> didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
> was always my intent).
>
>
>
> That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
> previously with *your* software or who else you gave it to. (As long as that
> earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!)
>
>
>
> I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine is
> trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
> distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the GPL
> through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain the
> right to create new derivative works and distribute them.
>
>
>
> Roy is correct:
>
> As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
>
>
> ... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>
>> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
>> think that is really true.
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
>
>
>> Recognize that the software has been
>> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
>> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
>> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
>> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
>> control, and then call it ASF code.
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
>
>> The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
>> recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
>> of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
>> several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>>
>> If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
>> commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
>> into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>> ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
>> process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
>> general@incubator
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>
>
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
> cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).
>
>
>
>
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
> functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
> exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
> didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
> was always my intent).
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
> social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
> We've seen it before, on several occasions.****
>
> Examples please???? /Larry****
>
> **
>
Hi Larry,
I provided an example earlier for Apache Directory in this thread. Greg has
a point regarding the social issues this potentially brings about. I've
seen it happen unfortunately.
> **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:20 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* RE: Committers' hobby projects****
>
> ** **
>
> There is technical, and there is social.****
>
> Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It
> is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it
> before, on several occasions.****
>
> On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Ralph Goers wrote:****
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent). ****
>
> ****
>
> That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
> previously with **your** software or who else you gave it to. (As long as
> that earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!) ****
>
> ****
>
> I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine
> is trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
> distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the
> GPL through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain
> the right to create new derivative works and distribute them. ****
>
> ****
>
> Roy is correct:****
>
> As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
> ****
>
> ... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!****
>
> ****
>
> /Larry****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Committers' hobby projects****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>
> wrote:****
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> > think that is really true.****
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.****
>
>
> > Recognize that the software has been
> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> > control, and then call it ASF code.****
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
>
> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
> >
> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> > general@incubator****
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x****
>
> ****
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of
> all cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent). ****
>
> ****
>
> Ralph****
>
> ****
>
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Matt Benson wrote:
> But doesn't that directly countermand the idea that the ASF is about
> communities? I am sympathetic to Greg's concerns; I just don't expect
> bad behavior of myself.
In my view, communities here at Apache are important only if they create
great software. Otherwise we might as well join the Shriners. /Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Benson [mailto:gudnabrsam@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:53 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> > Benson Margulies wrote:
> >> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer
> some
> >> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
> >
> > Thanks, Benson, but I'm actually more interested in the lessons we
> learned from that situation. Perhaps I'm overreacting (again) to a
> discussion here, but I got the sense that we might object if a
> committer submitted a "hobby" project for inclusion in an Apache
> software project. And I fail to see why we'd care about a committer's
> motivation in submitting valid code as long as we want the code.
> >
> > Indeed, an important part of the Apache model for me is that we
> honestly don't care about the motivations of committers or of users as
> long as they comply with the requirements of the Apache License 2.0.
>
>
> Matt
>
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:31 PM
> >> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
> >>
> >> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer
> some
> >> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
>> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
>
> Thanks, Benson, but I'm actually more interested in the lessons we learned from that situation. Perhaps I'm overreacting (again) to a discussion here, but I got the sense that we might object if a committer submitted a "hobby" project for inclusion in an Apache software project. And I fail to see why we'd care about a committer's motivation in submitting valid code as long as we want the code.
>
> Indeed, an important part of the Apache model for me is that we honestly don't care about the motivations of committers or of users as long as they comply with the requirements of the Apache License 2.0.
But doesn't that directly countermand the idea that the ASF is about
communities? I am sympathetic to Greg's concerns; I just don't expect
bad behavior of myself.
Matt
>
> /Larry
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:31 PM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>>
>> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
>> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 18:17, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>...
> Greg has re-spun the question as "how do we determine if we want it?" which
> is not a legal question at all and altogether offtopic on this list.
Threads wander. It happens :-)
See my last email; I think a tweak to the short-form(*) demonstrating
active "yes, we want this" would be Good.
Cheers,
-g
(*) the real/desired short-form, not the crazy thing on incubator.a.o right now
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/28/2012 4:50 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
>> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
>
> Thanks, Benson, but I'm actually more interested in the lessons we learned from that situation. Perhaps I'm overreacting (again) to a discussion here, but I got the sense that we might object if a committer submitted a "hobby" project for inclusion in an Apache software project. And I fail to see why we'd care about a committer's motivation in submitting valid code [EMPHASIS] as long as we want the code. [/EMPHASIS]
You've hit the nail on the head Larry. The question wasn't whether we want
the code, the question is what it takes to accept it, ***if we do***.
Let's presume the original question is "what does it take to accept it?" and
Roy's answer was [mostly] correct [modulo corporate IP/prior excl. assignment].
Greg has re-spun the question as "how do we determine if we want it?" which
is not a legal question at all and altogether offtopic on this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Benson Margulies wrote:
> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
Thanks, Benson, but I'm actually more interested in the lessons we learned from that situation. Perhaps I'm overreacting (again) to a discussion here, but I got the sense that we might object if a committer submitted a "hobby" project for inclusion in an Apache software project. And I fail to see why we'd care about a committer's motivation in submitting valid code as long as we want the code.
Indeed, an important part of the Apache model for me is that we honestly don't care about the motivations of committers or of users as long as they comply with the requirements of the Apache License 2.0.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:31 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>
> If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
> more context for the situation at the Maven project.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
If you will start a thread on an appropriate list, I could offer some
more context for the situation at the Maven project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 14:53, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>...
> As to code arriving in the Maven project from Codehaus, I haven't a clue
> what you're referring to. I watched the anxiety over the Maven project in
> the last few years but quite frankly I didn't recognize any IP problem other
> than some trademark issues.
Before your time.
>> People brought code here, that they developed on their own (outside
>> our community's involvement), slapped an Apache label on it, and then
>> shipped it. That is entirely counter to our entire model of
>> community-based software development.
>
> "Entirely counter to our entire model"? I thought that lots of people bring
> code here that they developed on their own. One man's hobby is another man's
> billion-dollar opportunity and another man's Nobel prize for software; so
> what does that concern Apache? I don't get the impression that the Incubator
> or responsible Apache TLPs allow the mere "slapping on" of an Apache label,
> but if that's happening we should stop *that* practice. Other than that,
> what's the problem you're trying to prevent?
To repeat: the exact problem that Alex stated, and the problem I
mentioned with Maven.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Greg Stein wrote, with his usual charm:
> Didn't you read Alex's note? Or did you ever watch the code magically
> arrive in the Maven project from Codehaus?
Yes to the first question, especially the part where Alex said:
> In the end I don't have all the answers for this corner case.
As to code arriving in the Maven project from Codehaus, I haven't a clue
what you're referring to. I watched the anxiety over the Maven project in
the last few years but quite frankly I didn't recognize any IP problem other
than some trademark issues.
> People brought code here, that they developed on their own (outside
> our community's involvement), slapped an Apache label on it, and then
> shipped it. That is entirely counter to our entire model of
> community-based software development.
"Entirely counter to our entire model"? I thought that lots of people bring
code here that they developed on their own. One man's hobby is another man's
billion-dollar opportunity and another man's Nobel prize for software; so
what does that concern Apache? I don't get the impression that the Incubator
or responsible Apache TLPs allow the mere "slapping on" of an Apache label,
but if that's happening we should stop *that* practice. Other than that,
what's the problem you're trying to prevent?
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:22 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:49, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can
> have
> > social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache
> brand.
> > We've seen it before, on several occasions.
> >
> > Examples please???? /Larry
>
> Didn't you read Alex's note? Or did you ever watch the code magically
> arrive in the Maven project from Codehaus?
>
> People brought code here, that they developed on their own (outside
> our community's involvement), slapped an Apache label on it, and then
> shipped it. That is entirely counter to our entire model of
> community-based software development.
>
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:49, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
> social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
> We've seen it before, on several occasions.
>
> Examples please???? /Larry
Didn't you read Alex's note? Or did you ever watch the code magically
arrive in the Maven project from Codehaus?
People brought code here, that they developed on their own (outside
our community's involvement), slapped an Apache label on it, and then
shipped it. That is entirely counter to our entire model of
community-based software development.
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Greg Stein wrote: Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have
social issues. It is a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand.
We've seen it before, on several occasions.
Examples please???? /Larry
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:20 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: RE: Committers' hobby projects
There is technical, and there is social.
Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It is
a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it before, on
several occasions.
On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
was always my intent).
That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
previously with *your* software or who else you gave it to. (As long as that
earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!)
I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine is
trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the GPL
through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain the
right to create new derivative works and distribute them.
Roy is correct:
As long as all of the contributors have
a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!
/Larry
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> think that is really true.
Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
> Recognize that the software has been
> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> control, and then call it ASF code.
Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
> The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>
> If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> general@incubator
http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
:-).
If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
was always my intent).
Ralph
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
There is technical, and there is social.
Externally-developed code arriving at the ASF can have social issues. It is
a way for people to use and abuse the Apache brand. We've seen it before,
on several occasions.
On Feb 28, 2012 12:12 PM, "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Ralph Goers wrote:****
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent). ****
>
> ** **
>
> That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
> previously with **your** software or who else you gave it to. (As long as
> that earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!) ****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine
> is trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
> distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the
> GPL through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain
> the right to create new derivative works and distribute them. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Roy is correct:****
>
> As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
> ** **
>
> ... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!****
>
> ** **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Committers' hobby projects****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>
> wrote:****
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> > think that is really true.****
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.****
>
>
> > Recognize that the software has been
> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> > control, and then call it ASF code.****
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.****
>
>
> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
> >
> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> > general@incubator****
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x****
>
> ** **
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of
> all cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had
> something functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave
> him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference
> is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the
> ASF (which was always my intent). ****
>
> ** **
>
> Ralph****
>
> ** **
>
RE: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Ralph Goers wrote:
If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
was always my intent).
That is a difference without a distinction. Nobody cares what you did
previously with *your* software or who else you gave it to. (As long as that
earlier donation wasn't "exclusive"!)
I'm engaged in a discussion now on a European list where a client of mine is
trying to commercialize his previous donation into the standard Linux
distribution. The fact that he previously gave it to the world under the GPL
through the Linux process doesn't mean he doesn't simultaneously retain the
right to create new derivative works and distribute them.
Roy is correct:
As long as all of the contributors have
a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
... unless the previous grant was "exclusive"!
/Larry
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:50 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Committers' hobby projects
On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> think that is really true.
Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
> Recognize that the software has been
> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> control, and then call it ASF code.
Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
> The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>
> If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> general@incubator
http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
:-).
If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
was always my intent).
Ralph
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Ralph Goers
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>> >
>> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
>> > think that is really true.
>>
>> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
>>
>> > Recognize that the software has been
>> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
>> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
>> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
>> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
>> > control, and then call it ASF code.
>>
>> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
>> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
>> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
>> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>>
>> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
>> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
>> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
>> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>> >
>> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
>> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
>> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > -g
>> >
>> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
>> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
>> > general@incubator
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>>
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
> cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
> floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
> :-).
>
>
> If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the
> work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something
> functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the
> exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I
> didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which
> was always my intent).
It's that slight difference of which I have always been wary, hence my
having raised the discussion ;) .
Matt
>
> Ralph
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> > think that is really true.
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
>
> > Recognize that the software has been
> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> > control, and then call it ASF code.
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
> >
> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> > general@incubator
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>
>
> IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either :-).
>
If you want a second example then you can look at Log4j 2. I started the work on that at home but didn't commit anything to svn until I had something functional. Curt, the PMC chair, asked for advise and Roy gave him the exact same statement that my ICLA was enough. The only difference is that I didn't check the code in somewhere else before bringing it to the ASF (which was always my intent).
Ralph
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >
> > Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> > think that is really true.
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
>
> > Recognize that the software has been
> > developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> > large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> > improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> > *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> > control, and then call it ASF code.
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
> > The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> > recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> > of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> > several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
> >
> > If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> > commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> > into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> > process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> > general@incubator
>
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>
>
IMHO simply referencing an example of one case to serve as the basis of all
cases is not right here. When trying to level a picture relative to the
floor, you might wind up surprised that the floor was never level either
:-).
Below I presume a single committer (with ICLA on file) is importing their
own code from an external repository into an ASF TLP repository area, and
cover the topics of:
1. Contribution Size (when size matters ;))
2. Where is the commit being made?
3. How is it handled?
Contribution Size (when size matters ;))
If this is a simple matter of importing some code from repository to
repository then size does matter since it impacts the community that will
maintain it and work with it. When small, it's not much more than an
average sized single commit, done in phases elsewhere. This is sort of like
the DVCS model (work flow) of development. Someone can follow the commit
and easily understand what's taking place in this case. It makes no
difference if this code is stored locally on your local repository or
stored remotely on some external repository hosting service.
Where is the commit being made?
The question of WHERE the code is imported into a TLP's repository is
important too. If it's in the committer's personal sandbox then the
community inherently understands what's taking place as well as the
committers intentions. A conscientious member of the community usually will
post a descriptive email about what they just did to notify the community.
Often this scenario makes the size aspect less relavent, but of course the
code is the work of the sole ICLA holding community member. So size does
not matter so much; it's all about the motion in the ocean baby.
If this code is dumped as a new sub-project of the TLP, say at a peer level
to those that go through the standard review, vote, then release process of
TLPs, then I don't think this is a proper action. What this translates to
in terms of legalities is what's hazy and I think that's what we're trying
to hone in on in this discussion. Creating a new releasable product at the
ASF requires procedures and some minimal criteria.This is how we safeguard
ourselves legally, our marks, and how we generally try to achieve some
level of project continuity through a healthy community around that code
base.
In the past we've dealt with slicksters who tried to dump code as a peer to
other TLP sub-projects (as releasable products) attempting to sneak in
their work to go straight into the standard review, vote, then release
process. We found this one guy doing this to impress an employer: "Look I
just willed and created this new Apache product all by myself: see what I
can do!" Because the review, vote, then release process was something we
trusted he snuck a few past us. Then a year later we looked and we found we
had a few really crappy code bases without anyone in the community to
support them. Then when this guy was called upon to do something about it,
he went MIA on us. In the end, this strained the community, caused code and
project continuity issues and resulted in a lot of user dissatisfaction. In
the end, we the TLP wound up banding together to cover and support what
this poser did but it was painful. I sure don't want to see this ever
happen again. It undermined the continuity aspect that the incubator
stresse.
But the point of this past experience is there's a reason why the incubator
requires a disparte group of at a minimum 3 developers on a project. To
some degree dumping a large chunk of code as if it were a candidate for the
simple 72 hour review, vote, then release process is not proper. There's
just no clear way to handle this but through the proper CULTURE in the TLP!
Even a committer with ICLA on file does not have the right to create a new
project on his/her own and mainstream it as a candidate that can go through
the standard review, vote, and release procedure. It might be debatable if
a TLP PMC has this right but that's another question: FYI I think it does
by a narrow margine for various reasons. But it is risky if the TLP is not
healthy. It can over look many things like we did and we were relatively
heathy. This in turn can harm the ASF. Forget about the code not being
supportable in terms of continuity and community around the code, what
about clearing the marks for the new product? Is the TLP doing this as well
as the incubator does it?
In the end I don't have all the answers for this corner case. But I do
suggest one thing:
The ASF needs to formalize a simple process of product creating (under a
TLP) that requires an ACK from the board. The ACK request should contain
the list of active committers on the subproject as well as the legal name
of the product. All PMC can have their own way to determine candidacy: via
discussion or formal vote. But in the end they need to get the approval for
it from the board. This makes sure a candidate sub-project meets certain
criteria to be made into a releasable ASF product. which goes through the
standard review, vote, release process thereafter.
If this ACK procedure to add/remove new products were mandated along side
the ACK required to add/remove a new PMC members, then I think I would be
very comfortable with Roy's KISS approach as the general rule.
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 22:13, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
> >>
> >> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> >> think that is really true.
> >
> > Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
>
> "Answered" means written down rather than tucked away in a mailing
> list somewhere. It's unfortunate that Robert's attempt to fix the
> written-down portion got blocked :-/ (per your reference to the 2008
> thread)
>
> >> Recognize that the software has been
> >> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> >> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> >> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> >> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> >> control, and then call it ASF code.
> >
> > Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> > a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> > then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> > It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
>
> Hehehe... That's a pretty poor example. Shambhala was contributed by
> Robert Thau. The same Robert Thau who has no ICLA on file. No
> Membership Agreement. No Grant. Nothing. Of course... that's because
> the Foundation didn't even *exist* in 1995 when he committed Shambhala
> :-P
>
> >...
> > http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
>
> As Benson notes, there are two things going on in the thread: the
> simple IP clearance you describe in the reference thread. Then we have
> the PMC oversight issue that I'm worried about with
> externally-developed projects magically appearing at Apache.
>
> The "short form" should be fixed up to be just that: short, per your
> suggestions.
>
> I might tweak that suggestion in one way: if there are multiple
> committers (eg. the project was collaboratively developed outside of
> the ASF), then there should be (3) PMC +1's on the short form. That
> would demonstrate active awareness by the PMC at the time of
> contribution (rather than a lazy acknowledgement at release time).
> With that tweak, I think my (and Alex?) concerns about Bad Committers
> misusing the Apache brand.
>
>
Yes that would do too. Lazy consensus is not going to cut it.
> (and if the code is developed by just one person, then their ICLA is just
> fine)
>
>
--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 22:13, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>
>> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
>> think that is really true.
>
> Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
"Answered" means written down rather than tucked away in a mailing
list somewhere. It's unfortunate that Robert's attempt to fix the
written-down portion got blocked :-/ (per your reference to the 2008
thread)
>> Recognize that the software has been
>> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
>> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
>> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
>> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
>> control, and then call it ASF code.
>
> Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
> a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
> then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
> It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
Hehehe... That's a pretty poor example. Shambhala was contributed by
Robert Thau. The same Robert Thau who has no ICLA on file. No
Membership Agreement. No Grant. Nothing. Of course... that's because
the Foundation didn't even *exist* in 1995 when he committed Shambhala
:-P
>...
> http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
As Benson notes, there are two things going on in the thread: the
simple IP clearance you describe in the reference thread. Then we have
the PMC oversight issue that I'm worried about with
externally-developed projects magically appearing at Apache.
The "short form" should be fixed up to be just that: short, per your
suggestions.
I might tweak that suggestion in one way: if there are multiple
committers (eg. the project was collaboratively developed outside of
the ASF), then there should be (3) PMC +1's on the short form. That
would demonstrate active awareness by the PMC at the time of
contribution (rather than a lazy acknowledgement at release time).
With that tweak, I think my (and Alex?) concerns about Bad Committers
misusing the Apache brand.
(and if the code is developed by just one person, then their ICLA is just fine)
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>
> Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
> think that is really true.
Yes, it is true. This question has been asked and answered before.
> Recognize that the software has been
> developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
> large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
> improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
> *outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
> control, and then call it ASF code.
Sure we do. See Shambhala. As long as all of the contributors have
a CLA on file and all the contributors agree to the contribution,
then it is covered under those CLAs. All paperwork complete.
It doesn't matter where the code was stored in the past.
> The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
> recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
> of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
> several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
>
> If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
> commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
> into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
> process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
> general@incubator
http://markmail.org/message/zkzsung623jtfa7x
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
This is covered by our "short form" IP clearance in the Incubator:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
Roy said a person can just "check it in" (ie. option A), but I don't
think that is really true. Recognize that the software has been
developed outside of our community engagement. Suddenly turning this
large piece of code into "Apache code" is generally considered
improper. We don't normally let people develop entire products
*outside* of the ASF community process, then dump it into source
control, and then call it ASF code.
The short-form clearance is intended to ensure that the PMC
recognizes, as a whole, what is arriving in its repository. That each
of the people who have committed to that code (whether one, or
several) have the proper ICLAs on file. etc.
If you're talking about 100 lines of code, then what the heck... just
commit it. But if you're talking about a subproject that is moving
into Commons, then please use the short-form clearance.
Cheers,
-g
ps. the "short form" looks a lot longer than I remember it to be; that
process should be streamlined, which is something to discuss on
general@incubator
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:37, Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Several times, particularly in the Commons community, this type of
> issue has come up: To be as concrete as possible, an existing ASF
> committer has a hobby project hosted at github, and decides that the
> project would make a good Commons component. I assert that one of the
> following is true:
>
> A. Because the sole author and copyright holder has an ICLA on file
> he can simply add his code within the established rules of the target
> TLP, presuming he has the necessary commit karma.
> B. Because the code has "seen the light of day" outside the ASF a
> software grant must be filed.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:37 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Several times, particularly in the Commons community, this type of
> issue has come up: To be as concrete as possible, an existing ASF
> committer has a hobby project hosted at github, and decides that the
> project would make a good Commons component. I assert that one of the
> following is true:
>
> A. Because the sole author and copyright holder has an ICLA on file
> he can simply add his code within the established rules of the target
> TLP, presuming he has the necessary commit karma.
> B. Because the code has "seen the light of day" outside the ASF a
> software grant must be filed.
>
> Which is it?
A.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Committers' hobby projects
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
My opinion - if the individual has written all the code no software grant is required. Just because they chose to use github for version control doesn't change the fact that they have had sole control of the code. If, however, they have accepted contributions from others then the water becomes muddier.
Ralph
On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:37 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Several times, particularly in the Commons community, this type of
> issue has come up: To be as concrete as possible, an existing ASF
> committer has a hobby project hosted at github, and decides that the
> project would make a good Commons component. I assert that one of the
> following is true:
>
> A. Because the sole author and copyright holder has an ICLA on file
> he can simply add his code within the established rules of the target
> TLP, presuming he has the necessary commit karma.
> B. Because the code has "seen the light of day" outside the ASF a
> software grant must be filed.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org