Hi *, as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this IP clearance issue. My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??). Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
- I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue. IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal with an example. AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe". Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac . WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst" Regards Antonio [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41 On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: > Hi *, > > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote: > >> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that. >> >> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it, >> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to >> take some drastic action. > > not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting to > reconsider what Pid has said. > > WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ? > > Regards > > Antonio > >> >> >> p >> >> >> >>> Tommaso >>> >>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hi * >>>> >>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Amber >>>>> >>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report? >>>>> >>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from >>>>> University of Newcastle"? >>>> >>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent >>>> to general@)? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Antonio >
