You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> on 2021/09/05 22:49:19 UTC
[IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Hi
The Apache Maven project has voted [1] the donation of the
mvndaemon project [2].
Following the IP clearance process [3] this is a lazy consensus majority
vote, open for at least 72 hours.
Please vote to accept this contribution.
Thanks,
--
Olivier
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg124559.html
[2] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/maven-daemon.html
[3] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Peter Palaga <pe...@palaga.org>.
Hi Olivier, inline...
On 06/09/2021 00:49, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi
> The Apache Maven project has voted [1] the donation of the
> mvndaemon project [2].
>
> Following the IP clearance process [3] this is a lazy consensus
> majority vote, open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Please vote to accept this contribution.
You mean I should vote here in the 2 months old thread?
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg124559.html
<https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg124559.html>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Olivier
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg124559.html
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg124559.html>
> [2] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/maven-daemon.html
> <https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/maven-daemon.html>
> [3] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> <https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/>
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
I looked into every commit to this repository.
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
I understand from the thread there are CLAs from the two main contributors. Of the remaining 11 committers:
- lanmaoxinqing had one substantive commit of +87/-9 lines.
- Syquel had one substantive commit of +60/-7 lines.
All other commits were minor documentation, config file, versioning, workflow, cleanup, and typo fix changes.
On 9/5/21, 6:08 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
> ?? You mean we need CLAs for every person who contributed a Pull Request to
> an Apache License project?
No we don’t, but it’s best to have them from everyone who has made a significant contribution.
> we need to address the native part. Not sure how ATM
You probably need to work this out before merging the code into the ASF repo.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
My concern is the habit of some using lines of code as a measure of significance. One can make a "significant" commit of a few lines, and an insignificant commit of thousands of lines. It is better to assess the intellectual property content of the submission.
I did look through all contributions other than the top two contributors and found only two commits that I would consider "copyrightable" IP.
All that said:
I do not have any concern with the two contributors who made these two commits having not signed CLAs. I do not believe CLAs are required if:
- the individuals submitting the PR are not committers on the project (committers must sign CLAs)
- the individuals submitted a pull request to the project when it already had AL2.0 license
- the submission was voluntary
- they did not explicitly state their contribution was under any other license
I posted a few links earlier. See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201606.mbox/%3CCANq7Ko_z_cffLJU_7HoOnno4duo7bxUFDzutk3yNtSnXvu1-6A@mail.gmail.com%3E which references this blog post:
https://apetro.ghost.io/apache-contributors-no-cla/
On 9/5/21, 7:19 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:13, Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Code size is not the only measure of significance.
>
> Without any specialty knowledge of the domain, I would consider this
> security fix probably significant.
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/pull/391 fixing
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/issues/390
I don't understand your concern?
every project can have security issues but if it's fixed what is the
problem?
At least the first release under ASF will contain the fix because it's
already fixed.
>
>
> However, the AL2.0 license states:
> > Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally
> submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under
> the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or
> conditions.
>
> Given the project was AL2.0 licensed at the time of the contribution,
> submitting a PR to the repository should constitute a "Contribution
> intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work" and should require no
> additional terms.
>
> Also see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156?focusedCommentId=13554864&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-13554864
> > Any contribution - in any form (patch to the mailing list, blog post,
> JIRA attchment, git pull request, Bugzilla attachment, scrawled on the back
> of a napkin) - may be included as long as two conditions are met:
> >
> > 1. As per section 5 of AL2 the person providing the patch does not
> explicitly state that the patch provided is not licensed under ALv2
> >
> > 2. The project's PMC is happy that the person providing the contribution
> has the necessary rights to do so.
>
>
>
> On 9/5/21, 6:46 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
> except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other
> contributions
> as really significant in terms of code size :)
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:13, Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Code size is not the only measure of significance.
>
> Without any specialty knowledge of the domain, I would consider this
> security fix probably significant.
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/pull/391 fixing
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/issues/390
I don't understand your concern?
every project can have security issues but if it's fixed what is the
problem?
At least the first release under ASF will contain the fix because it's
already fixed.
>
>
> However, the AL2.0 license states:
> > Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally
> submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under
> the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or
> conditions.
>
> Given the project was AL2.0 licensed at the time of the contribution,
> submitting a PR to the repository should constitute a "Contribution
> intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work" and should require no
> additional terms.
>
> Also see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156?focusedCommentId=13554864&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-13554864
> > Any contribution - in any form (patch to the mailing list, blog post,
> JIRA attchment, git pull request, Bugzilla attachment, scrawled on the back
> of a napkin) - may be included as long as two conditions are met:
> >
> > 1. As per section 5 of AL2 the person providing the patch does not
> explicitly state that the patch provided is not licensed under ALv2
> >
> > 2. The project's PMC is happy that the person providing the contribution
> has the necessary rights to do so.
>
>
>
> On 9/5/21, 6:46 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
> except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other
> contributions
> as really significant in terms of code size :)
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
Code size is not the only measure of significance.
Without any specialty knowledge of the domain, I would consider this security fix probably significant.
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/pull/391 fixing https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/issues/390
However, the AL2.0 license states:
> Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
Given the project was AL2.0 licensed at the time of the contribution, submitting a PR to the repository should constitute a "Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work" and should require no additional terms.
Also see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156?focusedCommentId=13554864&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-13554864
> Any contribution - in any form (patch to the mailing list, blog post, JIRA attchment, git pull request, Bugzilla attachment, scrawled on the back of a napkin) - may be included as long as two conditions are met:
>
> 1. As per section 5 of AL2 the person providing the patch does not explicitly state that the patch provided is not licensed under ALv2
>
> 2. The project's PMC is happy that the person providing the contribution has the necessary rights to do so.
On 9/5/21, 6:46 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other contributions
as really significant in terms of code size :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
For context,
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
It looks to me like the not-top-2-contributors accounted for well under one percent of the code, and all of their contributions were under the Apache License 2.0.
While not trivial, the other contributions seem to be simple and easily rewritten if needed.
So I have no problem accepting this IP Clearance as documented. If the other contributors show up later the project can deal with them later.
Regards,
Craig
> On Sep 5, 2021, at 7:02 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors <https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors> except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other contributions as really significant in terms of code size :)
>
> You might want to look at each contribution and see if they are significant, I would look at those > 50 lines or so rather than using a comparison to the largest committers.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/5/21, 7:16 PM, "Olivier Lamy" <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
Again the project is already Apache license from the start so any
contribution will be de facto ASF compliant
***
Linked from the blog post I cited earlier justifies this statement.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/201112.mbox/%3CA603FFCE-623B-43E9-87F8-39BAA51C72D1@gbiv.com%3E
See the last paragraph, especially the last 3 lines. I do not think any CLA is required for pull requests by non-committers on an already-AL licensed project
From "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>
Contributions can
be contributed using any of our communication forums and they are
considered to be under the Apache License 2.0. If the author happens
to have a CLA on file, then the CLA overrides the normal contribution
license automatically -- there is no need to check that.
There is no reason to apply this extra level of control within
infrastructure for checking things that any reasonably competent
committer can be trusted to do themselves. And there is a known
reason not to do so, namely that the committer field in git has
nothing to do with the provenance of the code, but may in fact
vary for the same individual depending on whether they are
interacting with a public repository or their work's repository,
or maybe even their club's repository. Github is certainly one
example where the committer names will not match our avail names,
and one of the goals of this effort is to enable folks to
use Github as one of many forums for collaborating with potential
recruits.
Yes, that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and
author of the Apache License, and has previously been cleared
with Apache's legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator.
We don't need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers.
We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under
our normal terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
I agree in general, and due diligence is specifically warranted for the case you cite here:
> often with software grants the license changes to ALv2 just before donation
So to narrow the conversation for this specific case:
The LICENSE file was added to the repo 2019-09-30 and all files in the repo had AL2.0 license headers added on 2020-06-18. Only the "top two" had made contributions at this point; the remaining 11 contributors submitted their contribution to files which already carried the AL2 header at the time of their submission.
Accordingly, as those 11 contributors did not explicitly state their contribution was under a different license, I do not think CLAs are required, no matter the size of their commits.
On 9/5/21, 8:08 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
Hi,
While some of that conversation may apply here, and I don’t think there is any issues, please note the conversation is in a slightly different context to a software grant. When contributing to an ASF project it is clear under what terms you are contributing. When contributing to a 3rd party repo it may not be clear, and often with software grants the license changes to ALv2 just before donation or a whole lot of other things can occur.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
While some of that conversation may apply here, and I don’t think there is any issues, please note the conversation is in a slightly different context to a software grant. When contributing to an ASF project it is clear under what terms you are contributing. When contributing to a 3rd party repo it may not be clear, and often with software grants the license changes to ALv2 just before donation or a whole lot of other things can occur.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Daniel Widdis <wi...@gmail.com>.
On 9/5/21, 7:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
You’ll note [1] says "All contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to any Apache projects must complete, sign, and submit via email an Individual Contributor License Agreement(ICLA).’ however we do allow people to contribute without signing an ICLA and as the code is under an Apache license the intent would be clear here.
That seems to be in conflict to the license itself [2] which states:
> 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
The author of the license clarified this in [3]:
> Yes, that opinion comes from me speaking as a board member and
author of the Apache License, and has previously been cleared
with Apache's legal team for a long ago discussion with Incubator.
We don't need a CLA on file to accept contributions from non-committers.
We just need a clear intent by the author to contribute under
our normal terms.
> The authors do not need to have a CLA
on file even if the contribution is massive -- CLAs are only
required for the people who want an account at Apache and thus
are allowed to make the decision to push those bits into our
repository.
1. https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html
2. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
3. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-infrastructure-dev/201112.mbox/%3CA603FFCE-623B-43E9-87F8-39BAA51C72D1@gbiv.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Is there any rule written somewhere? Because frankly "significant" contribution is very subjective….
You’ll note [1] says "All contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to any Apache projects must complete, sign, and submit via email an Individual Contributor License Agreement(ICLA).’ however we do allow people to contribute without signing an ICLA and as the code is under an Apache license the intent would be clear here.
Re “significant” some project have gone the extra distance and gotten an ICLA from every single contributor even if they had only contributed one line of ccde, some others have picked some criteria and reviewed all commits that fit and determined to determine if they were significant. It has, like a lot of things, varied from project to project.
You also note I didn’t vote -1 on this, I just asked if you had considered this and if you had ICLAs from other contributors.
Kind Regards,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:03, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors <
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors> except the 2 main
> contributors we can't really qualify other contributions as really
> significant in terms of code size :)
>
> You might want to look at each contribution and see if they are
> significant, I would look at those > 50 lines or so rather than using a
> comparison to the largest committers.
>
Is there any rule written somewhere?
Because frankly "significant" contribution is very subjective....
Do we consider 50 lines of pom.xml as a significant contribution?
I have seen larger contributions in some projects without any CLA.
Again the project is already Apache license from the start so any
contribution will be de facto ASF compliant
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors <https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors> except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other contributions as really significant in terms of code size :)
You might want to look at each contribution and see if they are significant, I would look at those > 50 lines or so rather than using a comparison to the largest committers.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 11:08, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > ?? You mean we need CLAs for every person who contributed a Pull Request
> to
> > an Apache License project?
>
> No we don’t, but it’s best to have them from everyone who has made a
> significant contribution.
>
looking at this https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
except the 2 main contributors we can't really qualify other contributions
as really significant in terms of code size :)
>
> > we need to address the native part. Not sure how ATM
>
> You probably need to work this out before merging the code into the ASF
> repo.
>
yup definitely!
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> ?? You mean we need CLAs for every person who contributed a Pull Request to
> an Apache License project?
No we don’t, but it’s best to have them from everyone who has made a significant contribution.
> we need to address the native part. Not sure how ATM
You probably need to work this out before merging the code into the ASF repo.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
paperwork updated with the last hash
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 15:52, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> The mentioned issue has been fixed.
> We are moving the GitHub repo under asf org.
> I don’t understand your question
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 1:51 pm, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > AFAIK, Guillaume fixed the issue as described in
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586>
>> >
>> > Nothing blocks now, isn't it?
>>
>> I’m nt aware of anything.
>>
>> > Do we consider the clearance ok as a conclusion, or should we restart a
>> new
>> > thread?
>>
>> Is what you donating the same or has it changed and has a different VC
>> hash? If it’s changed I would start a new thread.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Justin
>
>
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
In case the code was rewritten or greatly modified, we'd need to check the
IP again, but this isn't the case. There has been only minor modifications
/ bug fixes, so that should be fine.
Le lun. 6 déc. 2021 à 06:52, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> a écrit :
> The mentioned issue has been fixed.
> We are moving the GitHub repo under asf org.
> I don’t understand your question
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 1:51 pm, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > AFAIK, Guillaume fixed the issue as described in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586>
> > >
> > > Nothing blocks now, isn't it?
> >
> > I’m nt aware of anything.
> >
> > > Do we consider the clearance ok as a conclusion, or should we restart a
> > new
> > > thread?
> >
> > Is what you donating the same or has it changed and has a different VC
> > hash? If it’s changed I would start a new thread.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
The mentioned issue has been fixed.
We are moving the GitHub repo under asf org.
I don’t understand your question
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 1:51 pm, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > AFAIK, Guillaume fixed the issue as described in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586>
> >
> > Nothing blocks now, isn't it?
>
> I’m nt aware of anything.
>
> > Do we consider the clearance ok as a conclusion, or should we restart a
> new
> > thread?
>
> Is what you donating the same or has it changed and has a different VC
> hash? If it’s changed I would start a new thread.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> AFAIK, Guillaume fixed the issue as described in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586>
>
> Nothing blocks now, isn't it?
I’m nt aware of anything.
> Do we consider the clearance ok as a conclusion, or should we restart a new
> thread?
Is what you donating the same or has it changed and has a different VC hash? If it’s changed I would start a new thread.
Kind Regards,
Justin
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
AFAIK, Guillaume fixed the issue as described in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586
Nothing blocks now, isn't it?
Do we consider the clearance ok as a conclusion, or should we restart a new
thread?
Regards,
Hervé
Le jeudi 16 septembre 2021, 10:05:06 CET Olivier Lamy a écrit :
> FYI legal JIRA raise https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586
> cheers
> Olivier
>
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:26, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Can we replace the header with the following one instead:
> > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/incl
> > ude/jni.h <
> > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/incl
> > ude/jni.h>
> > > It is more clearly GPLv2 w/ CPE, so it should be allowed, as my
> > > understanding is that it is an exception to category X.
> >
> > AFAIK it is not. It is listed as Category X here [1].
> >
> > Form memory there might some cases where GPL + CPE might be OK as a
> > dependancy but it’s not OK in a release. Probably best to discuss on legal
> > discuss list or raise a legal JIRA.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
FYI legal JIRA raise https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-586
cheers
Olivier
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:26, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Can we replace the header with the following one instead:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/include/jni.h
> <
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/include/jni.h
> >
> > It is more clearly GPLv2 w/ CPE, so it should be allowed, as my
> > understanding is that it is an exception to category X.
>
> AFAIK it is not. It is listed as Category X here [1].
>
> Form memory there might some cases where GPL + CPE might be OK as a
> dependancy but it’s not OK in a release. Probably best to discuss on legal
> discuss list or raise a legal JIRA.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Can we replace the header with the following one instead:
>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/include/jni.h <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/include/jni.h>
> It is more clearly GPLv2 w/ CPE, so it should be allowed, as my
> understanding is that it is an exception to category X.
AFAIK it is not. It is listed as Category X here [1].
Form memory there might some cases where GPL + CPE might be OK as a dependancy but it’s not OK in a release. Probably best to discuss on legal discuss list or raise a legal JIRA.
Kind Regards,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@apache.org>.
Le lun. 6 sept. 2021 à 03:03, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hi
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
> On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 09:15, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a couple of questions:
>> I see we have ICLAs for the two main contributors, do we have ICLAs for
>> any for the the other contributors?
>>
>
> ?? You mean we need CLAs for every person who contributed a Pull Request
> to an Apache License project? (
> https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors)
> I don't understand the point. If folks have contributed to Apache license
> project I do not think a CLA is needed.
> We are not even doing that here @ ASF
>
>
>> The repro includes GPL licensed code how is this going to be handled?
>> (GPL is category X and not compatible with the Apache license).
>>
>
> we need to address the native part. Not sure how ATM
>
>
>
>> There also seems to be other non open source code? (e.g. "Copyright 2004
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL.
>> Use is subject to license terms.”) How will this be handled?
>>
>
> yup the native part has some problems which need to be addressed.
>
Can we replace the header with the following one instead:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/native/include/jni.h
It is more clearly GPLv2 w/ CPE, so it should be allowed, as my
understanding is that it is an exception to category X.
Guillaume
>
>
>>
>> There is Apache licensed code from 3rd parties included the donations, do
>> take care when updating the headers after donation, and don’t replace these
>> headers.
>
>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Justin
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
--
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Hi
Thanks for looking into this.
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 09:15, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a couple of questions:
> I see we have ICLAs for the two main contributors, do we have ICLAs for
> any for the the other contributors?
>
?? You mean we need CLAs for every person who contributed a Pull Request to
an Apache License project? (
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors)
I don't understand the point. If folks have contributed to Apache license
project I do not think a CLA is needed.
We are not even doing that here @ ASF
> The repro includes GPL licensed code how is this going to be handled? (GPL
> is category X and not compatible with the Apache license).
>
we need to address the native part. Not sure how ATM
> There also seems to be other non open source code? (e.g. "Copyright 2004
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL.
> Use is subject to license terms.”) How will this be handled?
>
yup the native part has some problems which need to be addressed.
>
> There is Apache licensed code from 3rd parties included the donations, do
> take care when updating the headers after donation, and don’t replace these
> headers.
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Maven - Mvndaemon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I have a couple of questions:
I see we have ICLAs for the two main contributors, do we have ICLAs for any for the the other contributors?
The repro includes GPL licensed code how is this going to be handled? (GPL is category X and not compatible with the Apache license).
There also seems to be other non open source code? (e.g. "Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.”) How will this be handled?
There is Apache licensed code from 3rd parties included the donations, do take care when updating the headers after donation, and don’t replace these headers.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org