You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commonsrdf.apache.org by Lewis John Mcgibbney <le...@gmail.com> on 2015/03/18 21:17:06 UTC
Follow up from INFRA-9244
Hi Folks,
Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to
importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
over the TheASF?
Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but
not until.
Thanks
Lewis
--
*Lewis*
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Could an alternative to the MD5 hash of a zip file be the (more
secure/authoritative) SHA1 hash of a Git repository commit-chain?
On 19 March 2015 at 09:25, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#submit-clas has some details.
>
>
> A good question is: who will sign that Software Grant? (A loose GitHub
> organization is not a Legal Entity).
>
> I think we can simply contribute under the CLAs we already have with
> Apache using the IP Clearance procedure (which we can do ourselves
> with a lazy consensus)
>
>
> ..or do we still need the Software Grant to the secretary? In which
> case, does simply Sergio (and his employer) sign the Software Grant as
> he started the code-base and us others have contributed under the
> Apache license Section 5 Contributions?
>
> That is what was suggested for a similar situation on the incubator
> list not long ago..
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201502.mbox/%3CCALhtWkeroEKNTJqEk53Ms46RbH%3Dpt7vfEHCc25JnscLMdtutrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ says
>
> Additional notes
>
> The software grant requires that "Licensor owns or has sufficient
> rights to contribute the software source code...". In the case where
> there are multiple entities involved that only together have
> sufficient rights (for example in the case of an existing external
> project with multiple contributors), there are basically two
> possibilities to continue:
>
> All entities sign the same software grant together and submit one
> software grant form. This is preferred but obviously can complicate
> the process considerably.
> The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while
> everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an
> MD5 hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is
> recommended that the software grant form is modified in order to have
> a line for each party so the completeness of the paperwork can be
> verified upon receipt.
>
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 22:05, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Lewis,
>>
>> What does a transfer of ownership entail?
>>
>> I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent)
>> software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development.
>> That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if
>> the copyright was assigned to the ASF.
>>
>> Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me
>> still in general.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>> <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to
>>> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
>>> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
>>> over the TheASF?
>>> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but
>>> not until.
>>> Thanks
>>> Lewis
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Lewis*
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Code ingestion (mentors) [was: Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244]
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
To pick out the relevant discussion on general@incubator (about Groovy
which is much more complicated) that Stian mentioned:
Extracted points:
1/ The GH code is AL so we're safe (legally) anyway.
2/ Community wise, we/ASF prefer voluntary contributions.
So an explicit step of email for the 4 of us - Ian's would be nice on
principle but it's pretty clear it's a "bug fix" and if he's time poor,
no need to make that a show stopper.
Andy
On 26/03/15 16:54, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26/03/15 17:43, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> On 26 March 2015 at 15:41, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> * I can easily prepare a bundle with the current repository
>> +1.
>>
>> Would you then also do a git signed tag and then include the commit in
>> the IP clearance? It could provide a useful marker for later. For
>> Taverna I used a tag name like apache-import-20150223
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-taverna-language.git;a=tag;h=3f43e2023ddc1b4cff0e98f446afd7e7928487a7
>>
>
> +1 for that approach
>
>>> * If the contribution by an external developer (commit
>>> 2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a [3]) would represent an
>>> issue, we
>>> can easily skipped from the code donation given its minor importance.
>>
>> I can't see how Ian's contribution [3] is copyrightable or included
>> under "sufficient rights", and anyway it is covered by Apache License
>> section 5 contributions.
>
> I don't see a major problem either, but just wanted to discuss it.
>
>> BTW, where do email notifications on Jira go..? I didn't see anything
>> here or on commits.
>
> Here, but the request from Lewis is still being processed bu INFRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9245?focusedCommentId=14381883&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14381883
>
>
> Cheers,
>
Re: Code ingestion (mentors) [was: Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244]
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On 26/03/15 17:43, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> On 26 March 2015 at 15:41, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> * I can easily prepare a bundle with the current repository
> +1.
>
> Would you then also do a git signed tag and then include the commit in
> the IP clearance? It could provide a useful marker for later. For
> Taverna I used a tag name like apache-import-20150223
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-taverna-language.git;a=tag;h=3f43e2023ddc1b4cff0e98f446afd7e7928487a7
+1 for that approach
>> * If the contribution by an external developer (commit
>> 2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a [3]) would represent an issue, we
>> can easily skipped from the code donation given its minor importance.
>
> I can't see how Ian's contribution [3] is copyrightable or included
> under "sufficient rights", and anyway it is covered by Apache License
> section 5 contributions.
I don't see a major problem either, but just wanted to discuss it.
> BTW, where do email notifications on Jira go..? I didn't see anything
> here or on commits.
Here, but the request from Lewis is still being processed bu INFRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9245?focusedCommentId=14381883&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14381883
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: Code ingestion (mentors) [was: Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244]
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
On 26 March 2015 at 15:41, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've just created our first issue COMMONSRDF-1 [1] for managing such
> process, where:
Hurray!
> * I can easily prepare a bundle with the current repository
+1.
Would you then also do a git signed tag and then include the commit in
the IP clearance? It could provide a useful marker for later. For
Taverna I used a tag name like apache-import-20150223
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-taverna-language.git;a=tag;h=3f43e2023ddc1b4cff0e98f446afd7e7928487a7
> * If the contribution by an external developer (commit
> 2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a [3]) would represent an issue, we
> can easily skipped from the code donation given its minor importance.
I can't see how Ian's contribution [3] is copyrightable or included
under "sufficient rights", and anyway it is covered by Apache License
section 5 contributions.
(See also current discussion on general@incubator for Groovy software grant)
I could always ask Ian - but he's pretty busy with a brand new baby
these days...
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-1
BTW, where do email notifications on Jira go..? I didn't see anything
here or on commits.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Code ingestion (mentors) [was: Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244]
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
I've just created our first issue COMMONSRDF-1 [1] for managing such
process, where:
* I updated the IP Clearance status report [2]
* I can easily prepare a bundle with the current repository
* If the contribution by an external developer (commit
2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a [3]) would represent an issue,
we can easily skipped from the code donation given its minor importance.
* And then I could push it to our incubator-commonsrdf.git repository.
But as Andy said, I'd prefer our mentors to review this process to make
it as clean as possible.
Thanks.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-1
[2]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/commonsrdf.xml
[3]
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a
On 26/03/15 12:40, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 20/03/15 11:03, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>> That what I created INFRA-9248, because we already have IP Clerance
>> report draft that we can finalise now.
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/commons-rdf.xml?view=markup&pathrev=1612386
>>
>
> What's the next step and by whom?
>
> Mentors : sorry to come back to this but IP ingestion is very important
> and it is worth being as clean as possible so that the foundation of the
> project is as sound as possible. Having you review and validate the
> process as independent parties is helpful in that.
>
> On 18/03/15 22:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH.
> >
> > Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't
> > automatically cover the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly
> > say that we are transferring the code to Apache.
> >
> > The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP
> > clearance process.
> >
> > If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with
> > explicit declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in
> > email to say that we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code
> > on GH and hence our individual iCLAs can be applied.
> >
> > I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to
> > be on both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty
> > field).
>
> Do you think email declaration and iCLA enough?
>
> Andy
>
>>
>>
>> On 19/03/15 05:10, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>
>>> Well - I for one contribute my commits in the code on GitHub [1] and
>>> hence my individual iCLA can be applied.
>>>
>>> I have done the substantial parts of this in my spare time outside
>>> work, and therefore my employer University of Manchester is not
>>> claiming any Intellectual Property rights to this code.
>>> `
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/2bfe31612e963b6d2b5e50f13fd2e518ffcf0525
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFVCkv8QRBjo6D/0RkRAuF+AJ0fm1kwHbFJw6uiAICC8vR4mOFZdQCfQ0KQ
>>> FjBmViRNWEs/+070bVQ0u18=
>>> =uCCC
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Code ingestion (mentors) [was: Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244]
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 20/03/15 11:03, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> That what I created INFRA-9248, because we already have IP Clerance
> report draft that we can finalise now.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/commons-rdf.xml?view=markup&pathrev=1612386
What's the next step and by whom?
Mentors : sorry to come back to this but IP ingestion is very important
and it is worth being as clean as possible so that the foundation of the
project is as sound as possible. Having you review and validate the
process as independent parties is helpful in that.
On 18/03/15 22:41, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH.
>
> Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't
> automatically cover the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly
> say that we are transferring the code to Apache.
>
> The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP
> clearance process.
>
> If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with
> explicit declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in
> email to say that we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code
> on GH and hence our individual iCLAs can be applied.
>
> I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to
> be on both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty
> field).
Do you think email declaration and iCLA enough?
Andy
>
>
> On 19/03/15 05:10, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Well - I for one contribute my commits in the code on GitHub [1] and
>> hence my individual iCLA can be applied.
>>
>> I have done the substantial parts of this in my spare time outside
>> work, and therefore my employer University of Manchester is not
>> claiming any Intellectual Property rights to this code.
>> `
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/2bfe31612e963b6d2b5e50f13fd2e518ffcf0525
>>
>>
>> - --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1
>>
>> iD8DBQFVCkv8QRBjo6D/0RkRAuF+AJ0fm1kwHbFJw6uiAICC8vR4mOFZdQCfQ0KQ
>> FjBmViRNWEs/+070bVQ0u18=
>> =uCCC
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
That what I created INFRA-9248, because we already have IP Clerance
report draft that we can finalise now.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/commons-rdf.xml?view=markup&pathrev=1612386
On 19/03/15 05:10, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Well - I for one contribute my commits in the code on GitHub [1] and
> hence my individual iCLA can be applied.
>
> I have done the substantial parts of this in my spare time outside
> work, and therefore my employer University of Manchester is not
> claiming any Intellectual Property rights to this code.
> `
> [1] https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/2bfe31612e963b6d2b5e50f13fd2e518ffcf0525
>
> - --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iD8DBQFVCkv8QRBjo6D/0RkRAuF+AJ0fm1kwHbFJw6uiAICC8vR4mOFZdQCfQ0KQ
> FjBmViRNWEs/+070bVQ0u18=
> =uCCC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Well - I for one contribute my commits in the code on GitHub [1] and
hence my individual iCLA can be applied.
I have done the substantial parts of this in my spare time outside
work, and therefore my employer University of Manchester is not
claiming any Intellectual Property rights to this code.
`
[1] https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/tree/2bfe31612e963b6d2b5e50f13fd2e518ffcf0525
- --
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iD8DBQFVCkv8QRBjo6D/0RkRAuF+AJ0fm1kwHbFJw6uiAICC8vR4mOFZdQCfQ0KQ
FjBmViRNWEs/+070bVQ0u18=
=uCCC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Ian's contribution was very minor and not code related. We can remove
it if necessary to avoid the hassle of getting a SG for that change if
it is at all an issue.
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/commit/2ff2c6be5415295943c3131625695be1f5415c5a
On 19 March 2015 at 09:41, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH.
>
> Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't automatically cover
> the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly say that we are
> transferring the code to Apache.
>
> The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP clearance
> process.
>
> If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with explicit
> declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in email to say that
> we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code on GH and hence our
> individual iCLAs can be applied.
>
> I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to be on
> both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty field).
>
> Andy
>
> https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/graphs/contributors
>
>
> On 18/03/15 22:25, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#submit-clas has some
>> details.
>>
>>
>> A good question is: who will sign that Software Grant? (A loose GitHub
>> organization is not a Legal Entity).
>>
>> I think we can simply contribute under the CLAs we already have with
>> Apache using the IP Clearance procedure (which we can do ourselves
>> with a lazy consensus)
>>
>>
>> ..or do we still need the Software Grant to the secretary? In which
>> case, does simply Sergio (and his employer) sign the Software Grant as
>> he started the code-base and us others have contributed under the
>> Apache license Section 5 Contributions?
>>
>> That is what was suggested for a similar situation on the incubator
>> list not long ago..
>>
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201502.mbox/%3CCALhtWkeroEKNTJqEk53Ms46RbH%3Dpt7vfEHCc25JnscLMdtutrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ says
>>
>> Additional notes
>>
>> The software grant requires that "Licensor owns or has sufficient
>> rights to contribute the software source code...". In the case where
>> there are multiple entities involved that only together have
>> sufficient rights (for example in the case of an existing external
>> project with multiple contributors), there are basically two
>> possibilities to continue:
>>
>> All entities sign the same software grant together and submit one
>> software grant form. This is preferred but obviously can complicate
>> the process considerably.
>> The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while
>> everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an
>> MD5 hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is
>> recommended that the software grant form is modified in order to have
>> a line for each party so the completeness of the paperwork can be
>> verified upon receipt.
>>
>>
>> On 18 March 2015 at 22:05, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>
>>> What does a transfer of ownership entail?
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent)
>>> software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development.
>>> That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if
>>> the copyright was assigned to the ASF.
>>>
>>> Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me
>>> still in general.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>>> <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards
>>>> to
>>>> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
>>>> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
>>>> over the TheASF?
>>>> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase
>>>> but
>>>> not until.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Lewis
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Lewis*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH.
Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't automatically
cover the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly say that we are
transferring the code to Apache.
The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP
clearance process.
If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with
explicit declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in email
to say that we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code on GH and
hence our individual iCLAs can be applied.
I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to be
on both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty field).
Andy
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/graphs/contributors
On 18/03/15 22:25, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#submit-clas has some details.
>
>
> A good question is: who will sign that Software Grant? (A loose GitHub
> organization is not a Legal Entity).
>
> I think we can simply contribute under the CLAs we already have with
> Apache using the IP Clearance procedure (which we can do ourselves
> with a lazy consensus)
>
>
> ..or do we still need the Software Grant to the secretary? In which
> case, does simply Sergio (and his employer) sign the Software Grant as
> he started the code-base and us others have contributed under the
> Apache license Section 5 Contributions?
>
> That is what was suggested for a similar situation on the incubator
> list not long ago..
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201502.mbox/%3CCALhtWkeroEKNTJqEk53Ms46RbH%3Dpt7vfEHCc25JnscLMdtutrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ says
>
> Additional notes
>
> The software grant requires that "Licensor owns or has sufficient
> rights to contribute the software source code...". In the case where
> there are multiple entities involved that only together have
> sufficient rights (for example in the case of an existing external
> project with multiple contributors), there are basically two
> possibilities to continue:
>
> All entities sign the same software grant together and submit one
> software grant form. This is preferred but obviously can complicate
> the process considerably.
> The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while
> everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an
> MD5 hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is
> recommended that the software grant form is modified in order to have
> a line for each party so the completeness of the paperwork can be
> verified upon receipt.
>
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 22:05, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Lewis,
>>
>> What does a transfer of ownership entail?
>>
>> I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent)
>> software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development.
>> That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if
>> the copyright was assigned to the ASF.
>>
>> Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me
>> still in general.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney
>> <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to
>>> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
>>> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
>>> over the TheASF?
>>> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but
>>> not until.
>>> Thanks
>>> Lewis
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Lewis*
>
>
>
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#submit-clas has some details.
A good question is: who will sign that Software Grant? (A loose GitHub
organization is not a Legal Entity).
I think we can simply contribute under the CLAs we already have with
Apache using the IP Clearance procedure (which we can do ourselves
with a lazy consensus)
..or do we still need the Software Grant to the secretary? In which
case, does simply Sergio (and his employer) sign the Software Grant as
he started the code-base and us others have contributed under the
Apache license Section 5 Contributions?
That is what was suggested for a similar situation on the incubator
list not long ago..
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201502.mbox/%3CCALhtWkeroEKNTJqEk53Ms46RbH%3Dpt7vfEHCc25JnscLMdtutrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ says
Additional notes
The software grant requires that "Licensor owns or has sufficient
rights to contribute the software source code...". In the case where
there are multiple entities involved that only together have
sufficient rights (for example in the case of an existing external
project with multiple contributors), there are basically two
possibilities to continue:
All entities sign the same software grant together and submit one
software grant form. This is preferred but obviously can complicate
the process considerably.
The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while
everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an
MD5 hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is
recommended that the software grant form is modified in order to have
a line for each party so the completeness of the paperwork can be
verified upon receipt.
On 18 March 2015 at 22:05, Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Lewis,
>
> What does a transfer of ownership entail?
>
> I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent)
> software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development.
> That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if
> the copyright was assigned to the ASF.
>
> Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me
> still in general.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
> On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney
> <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to
>> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
>> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
>> over the TheASF?
>> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but
>> not until.
>> Thanks
>> Lewis
>>
>> --
>> *Lewis*
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Follow up from INFRA-9244
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Lewis,
What does a transfer of ownership entail?
I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent)
software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development.
That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if
the copyright was assigned to the ASF.
Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me
still in general.
Cheers,
Peter
On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney
<le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to
> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244
> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase
> over the TheASF?
> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but
> not until.
> Thanks
> Lewis
>
> --
> *Lewis*