Nice discussion. Thanks for clearing this up. So Duncan: go ahead if you got the time.
2014/1/31 Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com> > On 31 January 2014 04:37, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Read section 5 of the license. > > Ok, that's pretty clear-cut then. To save others from dragging up the > wording: > > "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." > > So I'd say any patch to existing source would be covered by that. The > term Contribution is defined higher in the license and includes > submission to the issue tracking system. > > Obtaining an ICLA should still be a goal, I think, but it shouldn't > prevent us from adding useful patches to the project. > > Duncan > > > > > On Jan 30, 2014 10:16 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" <brit...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure whether providing a patch for an AL licensed file is > >> automatically licensed under AL as well. In the end the raw diff file > does > >> not contain the AL header, so you're better of with an ICLA. > >> > >> Benedikt > >> > >> > >> 2014/1/27 Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> > >> > >> > Depends whose arguing probably :) > >> > > >> > Our license gives us a right to contributions under Apache 2.0 unless > >> > stated otherwise; the ICLA is playing safer. We can also simply take > >> > anything under a compatible license and include (with suitable > >> licensing). > >> > I did that for a method from Spring. > >> > > >> > Hen > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On 26 January 2014 19:47, Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com> > wrote: > >> > > > On 26 January 2014 18:49, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> Hi Duncan, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 2014/1/26 Duncan Jones <dun...@wortharead.com> > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> On 26 January 2014 13:33, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >>> > Hi all, > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > we've fixed some bugs and we have some nice new features > >> > implemented > >> > > >>> > (DiffBuilder, Jaro-Winkler Distance, RandomUtils, > >> ClassPathUtils), > >> > > so I'm > >> > > >>> > planning to cut a RC in the first week of February. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > I just wanted to know if there is anything you'd like to have > >> > > included in > >> > > >>> > the next release. Then please tag it with fix version 3.3. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > Regards, > >> > > >>> > Benedikt > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> I'm debating whether LANG-341 might be a candidate for > inclusion. > >> The > >> > > >>> patch is fairly complete, just needs Javadocs and a couple of > >> > > >>> additional unit tests, which I can sort over the coming week. > What > >> do > >> > > >>> you guys think? It seems like a useful addition to me. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Yes looks neat. The problem I'm seeing is, that the last > activity is > >> > > from > >> > > >> Nov 2011, and the contributor has no ICLA listed (see [1]), so > IP is > >> > not > >> > > >> absolutely clear. I'm unsure if we can use this contribution > without > >> > the > >> > > >> ICLA. Anyway, Hen has contributed the patch Vincent Ricard used, > so > >> we > >> > > can > >> > > >> use Hen's patch and improve it. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Benedikt > >> > > >> > >> > > >> [1] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html#unlistedclas > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > Good point. I think in this case I'll ping the contributor to get > >> > > > their thoughts on an ICLA and assume this will miss v3.3. He's > done a > >> > > > lot of work to extend Hen's patch and it would be a shame for that > >> not > >> > > > to get committed if he's interested. If there's no reply (or no > >> > > > interest), I'll sort something for v3.4. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Having said that... does this still represent a problem if the > >> > > contributor has patched existing code (containing the Apache > license)? > >> > > > >> > > Are there any situations where we can take a patch and apply it to > >> > > trunk without the contributor having an ICLA? I certainly had > patches > >> > > applied in the past without an ICLA, but perhaps things were more > lax > >> > > then? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Duncan > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> -- > >> > > >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ > >> > > >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ > >> > > >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter > >> > > >> http://github.com/britter > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ > >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ > >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter > >> http://github.com/britter > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
