Hi all,
And, please be aware that enterprises look VERY carefully at licenses.
The Apache 2 license is fine and welcoming. Other licenses may put up
significant roadblocks to using Groovy if they are bundled with
distributions. Please keep the licensing clean is my request. If you
need to have something that is not Apache 2, please distribute it as an
entirely separate, optional download and do not bundle it with Groovy.
Thanks,
Steve Amerige
Principal Software Developer, Fraud and Compliance Solutions Development
SAS Institute, 100 SAS Campus Dr, Room U3050, Cary, NC 27513-8617
On 6/17/2015 6:09 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
So given this grant, indeed, why do we even bother at all???
2015-06-17 11:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Guillaume Laforge
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> ...What is the process for asking people to relicense their
contributions to
> the documentation under ASL?...
Actually, given that (IIUC) the docs that we are talking about have
been donated under the Groovy software grant, asking the original
contributors might not technically be needed. But it's good practice,
I agree.
> ...If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
> relicensing, is that okay?...
I suggest creating a jira issue to keep track of that process, and
document there the agreements that you get so that the whole thing is
open and traceable. Emails sent to the groovy dev list sound ok to me.
> ...(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper
with a real
> signature, etc)...
If it was me I'd much rather sign everything digitally but that's not
how it works so far ;-)
-Bertrand
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
