Joshua, On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:22 PM Joshua Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> All, > > We have reviewed the commits that were made by the following government > employees: Alonza Mumford, Stephanie Huber (shuber), and Jeffrey Jacobs > (Jeffrey C. Jacobs, jeffrey.jacobs, timehorse). These contributors were > only active for a short period of time 5 years ago (2012) and we believe > that there is no need for them to sign an SGA as the vast majority of the > changes they made have been removed in the 5 years since they were added. > Unless these individuals are copyright holders to the source code, there is never a case for an individual to sign an SGA. Individuals may sign ICLAs if there's a belief they have contributed in a way that requires it (e.g. active code). > > Here is a summary of the few things that have remained in the codebase. > These were found by using git blame on the current state of the codebase as > well as doing a lot of grepping for strings in case code has moved to > different files and the original files have been removed. > > Outside of simply moving some test schemas inside of TDML files (as > opposed to keeping separate schema files), only 3 lines of Alonza Mumford's > code remain which consist only of some boilerplate in our test suite. > > Stephanie Huber primarily worked on some early implementations of > unparsing which has since been rewritten. While none of her unparsing code > remains in the codebase, there are a few unparsing tests as well as some > scripts that she contributed that are still a part of the test suite. > These scripts as well as some of her test code are part of some legacy code > that we have already earmarked for removal before finalizing the move to > Apache. > > Jeffrey Jacobs focused his work on the parsing of binary data which has > also largely been rewritten and none of his parsing code remains in the > codebase. There are still a few test cases that he contributed that are in > the test suite as well as some IDE configuration files that we have tracked > in the repo, which are also earmarked for removal as they are very out of > date. We do not feel that these warrant the need for him to sign an SGA. > > Please let us know if you have any questions or if there is any more > information you need. > > Thanks, > > Josh Adams > > > On 2017-09-19 08:42, Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09/14/2017 10:08 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > Steve, > > > > > > Apologies for the late reply. I had this on my todo for last week, > thought > > > I responded, but didn't. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM Steve Lawrence <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> I've thoroughly gone through the Daffodil codebase and documented all > > >> the potential code ownership issues that I think need to be resolved > > >> before we can donate the code to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). > > >> My findings are below. > > >> > > >> 1) The majority of the code is copyright NCSA, Tresys, or Mike > Beckerle. > > >> The contributors from NCSA and some from Tresys now work at different > > >> companies and so contacting all of them may be difficult. We have > > >> contacted representatives for these entities and are working to get > SGAs > > >> from NCSA, Tresys, and Mike Beckerle in place. We believe these three > > >> SGAs should cover contributions made by past employees. > > >> > > > > > > There's two types of open source. For the situation you're > describing, it > > > makes sense to wait on SGAs since the copyright owners are companies > not > > > individuals (I think Mike has already signed off). (the other type is > when > > > the individuals retain the IP, in which case the ICLA is preferred but > only > > > required if the copyright says something like "Contributors to > <Project>") > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 2) Some contributions came from other entities that we no longer have > > >> contact with. Based on the git log, this includes: > > >> > > >> - Jeffrey Jacobs (Navy Research Lab) > > >> - Stephanie Huber (Air Force Research Lab) > > >> - Alonza Mumford (Department of Defense) > > >> - Jonathan Cranford (MITRE) > > >> - Jacob Baker (Booze Allen Hamilton) > > >> > > >> Of this list, the first three are federal government entities. Our > > >> understanding is that federal government contributions are Public > > >> Domain, and so perhaps we do not need an SGA for these contributions? > > >> This needs to be confirmed. > > >> > > > > > > I forget the rules here. You're right that its public domain, but > there > > > are some nuances with then including it in a grant. I'd actually > recommend > > > asking the question on legal-discuss list and get their opinion. Our > > > present VP Legal is actually Chief Architect for NASA JPL so he should > be > > > pretty familiar with the situation. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> We have looked at the patches contributed from the non-government > > >> entities (Jonathan Cranford and Jacob Baker), and have confirmed that > > >> their changes have since been replaced as Daffodil has evolved, so we > do > > >> not believe an SGA is necessary for their contributions. > > >> > > >> 3) A handful of tests and schema files were given to us from IBM and > > >> include an IBM copyright. The license for these files is unknown. We > are > > >> working with IBM to get an SGA for these contributions. > > >> > > >> 4) The tests in item 3 include example snippets taken out of the DFDL > > >> specification, which are labeled as copyright Global Gird Forum (now > > >> renamed to the Open Grid Forum (OGF)). Regarding the ownership of > these > > >> files, the OGF has stated: > > >> > > >> In general OGF takes the position that it does not copyright or > > >> license software, and that the examples used in specifications are > > >> just that, examples of how to use the specification rather than > > >> separately copyrighted code snippets. > > >> > > >> The full copyright notice regarding the contents of OGF documents is > at: > > >> > > >> https://www.ogf.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/about/copyright > > >> > > >> The copyright is copied at the end of this email for reference [1]. To > > >> me, this means we do not need an SGA, but may need to include the > > >> copyright notice from the link. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Agreed, more likely than not we would place that in our LICENSE file. > We > > > can confirm this on legal when we're ready to do a release. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 5) We have copied code from the Scala library into Daffodil. The > license > > >> is 3-clause BSD and should not cause any issues, aside from needing to > > >> include the license. > > >> > > > > > > Agreed. Just make sure none of the grants indicate this code is > included. > > > Same for the next. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 6) We have copied code from the Passera library into Daffodil. The > > >> license is 3-clause BSD and should not cause any issues, aside from > > >> needing to include the license. > > >> > > >> We additionally have dependencies on other libraries, but none of > their > > >> code is included in the Daffodil source. We believe they are all > > >> compatible with the Apache v2 license, including Apache v2, BSD, MIT, > > >> and ICU. > > >> > > > > > > Dependencies are generally not an issue, unless they're GPL. Even > LGPL has > > > some interesting ways to work around. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> We are also working on getting a CCLA from Tresys, since all initial > > >> committers are employed by Tresys. > > >> > > >> - Steve > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] Open Grid Forum Full Copyright Notice: > > >> > > >> * Copyright (C) Open Grid Forum (insert applicable years). Some Rights > > >> Reserved. * > > >> > > >> This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to > > >> others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it > or > > >> assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and > > >> distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, > > >> provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are > included > > >> as references to the derived portions on all such copies and > derivative > > >> works. The published OGF document from which such works are derived, > > >> however, may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the > > >> copyright notice or references to the OGF or other organizations, > except > > >> as needed for the purpose of developing new or updated OGF documents > in > > >> conformance with the procedures defined in the OGF Document Process, > or > > >> as required to translate it into languages other than English. OGF, > with > > >> the approval of its board, may remove this restriction for inclusion > of > > >> OGF document content for the purpose of producing standards in > > >> cooperation with other international standards bodies. > > >> > > >> The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be > > >> revoked by the OGF or its successors or assignees. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for the answers John. Sounds like we're on the right track. For > > reference, I've started a thread on legal-discuss for further > > clarifications here: > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bea1471ba0b98a14c87d066e83faf377e6e537ed02ee9dc6b583569@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > > > - Steve > > >
