While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
>From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said. Thanks, -- Take care, Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>> > >>> > Would a standard SGA suffice here? >>> > >>> > I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen >>> > first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC >>> > vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the >>> > SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA >>> right >>> > away? >>> >>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order >>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;) >>> >> >> Haha :) >> >> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a >> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the >> community accepting the donation. > > There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base. > > Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look > at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it. > SGA established this kind of proper licensing. > > Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest > and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the > community. > > Thanks, > Roman.
