Right, we discussed that. My understanding is that we have 2 options: * either the API is committed first at Apache, in which case, it can't really be copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance * or it's copyrighted to the OSGi Alliance and it has to pre-exist the commit in our svn source tree
If we choose #1, that's easy, we just have to remove the copyright on the APIs headers. If we go for #2, for specs that have been released, that's not a problem, they usually come from the released spec jar (and they usually are not even included in the source tree). For spec / rfcs under development, the only thing needed is to commit the api first in an osgi repository. For example: https://github.com/osgi/design/tree/master/rfcs/rfc-xxxx/api and then commit the same code referencing the commit in the above directory. If the above is not practical, it can be any github repo actually, even you own repo. From the moment is has been committed by you somewhere outside the ASF, the copyright can be granted to the OSGi in a clear way, so that if the github code / commit is referenced from out svn commit, we can track the IP correctly. I think an OSGi repository such as the one above would be better. The only thing is to avoid committing an API directly to the ASF and pretending it's copyrighted by the OSGi Alliance, because source committed to the ASF is by default supposed to be given a non-exclusive copyright license grant coming from the ICLA/CCLA. So I'm not sure what's wrong with the above, nor how that's practically impossible, not that it would prohibit any kind of development. 2017-01-23 22:28 GMT+01:00 Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>: > Well, we discussed this in length last week, and as a matter of fact the > OSGi API which is under development is not available publically. So how > can we define a policy that is practically impossible? > This goes back to what I said several times last week, we can only > change our side (Apache) but we can't change the OSGi Alliance side. > > I think having a separate commit for the API and mentioning some > reference like the commit id or similar is a good idea. However, only > developers working for a member company of the OSGi Alliance can verify > this. But in practice, we have a lot of committers here being able to do > so, including Guillaume. > > Carsten > > Guillaume Nodet wrote > > As discussed on legal@ (see [1]), and in order to be able to track code > IP > > correctly, I propose that all commits that includes API code from the > OSGi > > Alliance are done in separate commit and include a reference to the > public > > source where the code comes from. > > > > Thoughts ? > > Guillaume > > > > [1] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201701.mbox/% > 3ccaa66tppc9lp71ak4uoxsnz8qzg+bnutyntzspbt+z48dynu...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > cziege...@apache.org > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
