On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:40 , Alexander Broekhuis wrote: > I'll try to answer what I think/know.. > > 2012/1/26 Pepijn Noltes <[email protected]> >> >> 1 Sign and send a Individual Contributor License Agreement (ICLA) >> 2 Sign and send a Corporate CLA (CCLA) > > If I am correct these are only needed in the case you become a committer.
Yes. ICLA you need in any case, CCLA if your company requires it (and to be safe it's probably a good idea when in doubt). > As you have indicated that you want to maintain the code, I think this is a > good idea. On [1] the process is described. In fact, even if you don't yet want to become a committer, it's okay to get an ICLA on file. Apache accepts them regardless if you want to be a committer. Admittedly, it makes the most sense if you do want to become one. > This requires some action on or > end, we should start the formal discuss and vote if I understand it > correctly. Yes. Same goes for the donation, we should also start a vote once that's donated in a JIRA issue. > [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html#Voting+in+a+new+committer > >> 3 Get approval for device access of one of the PMCs > > I am not sure of this step.. Are binding votes needed, and if so how many? > I think Marcel (or another mentor) can better answer this. I couldn't find > a direct resource describing this process. First attach it to a JIRA issue, make sure the Grant (and possibly ICLA) is arranged. Then we can vote on it. More info on voting in general can be found here [2]. Specific information about the donation and IP clearance can be found here [3]. [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#poding-ip-clearance >> 4 Sign and send a Software Grant Agreement for the device access (SGA) > > This one has to be filled in and send to Apache to be able to accept the > code. Yup. >> My idea was to create a Jira issue and attach a patch to that, but I >> am not sure if we need to sign a agreement before we can do that. > > As far as I can tell this is ok. Though I think it should be the sources > as is, and not a patch. If there are any patches to the original Celix code > I think it is better to send those as individual issues. This keeps > licensing and IP issues obvious and separated from the current Celix > source. Makes sense. > I hope this helps, and a mentor can fill in the gaps! Did that answer all your questions? Greetings, Marcel
