On 8/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
As a PMC member for Apache MyFaces, you *should* be concerned about this.
Part of the responsibility that the ASF Board delegates to each PMC is to ensure that all code ultimately included in the project is covered by appropriate licensing, so that downstream users of Apache software can be assured that this is the case. For "patches" included as attachments on a JIRA issue, we provide a convenient way for the poster to grant a license specifically for this patch. Therefore, sending all patches from non-committers through JIRA helps create an audit trail, and is therefore a Good Thing.
However, this will not be considered sufficient for "large" contributions, where the contributor is also asked to sign an Individual CLA[1]. How large is "large"? Clearly, we shouldn't need this for for a three-line patch submitted through JIRA with the appropriate radio button granting a license attrached. But would it have been OK to accept all of Trinidad as a humongous patch, simply by having someone have checked the button? Nope ... that is definitely "large" enough to require more. A contribution of this size (multiple source files and associated resources) is definitely at the point where the "should" in the page referenced below means REALLY REALLY should.
Is the original author of these classes willing to sign and fax in a CLA[2]? If so, that gets us over the first hurdle. If not, the files should definitely be removed.
The second problem is one that Wendy pointed out ... lack of license headers on the source files. While the details of this policy are currently being reviewed, standing practice is to use the complete header that you'll see on all the other MyFaces source files, in its entirety, at the top of every source file. As committers, this is something we should look for on incoming new source files before adding them to the source code repository. Because these files do not have such headers, they should be removed, and not re-added until both issues (CLA and license headers) have been addressed.
The line-endings issue is something that should also be fixed, but it's not make-or-break to have source code in the repository. But having these broken means you'll have to answer to people like Wendy :-).
Even if they had been, that would not have been sufficient in this case, for the reasons outlined above.
I am not concerned about the icla or not
As a PMC member for Apache MyFaces, you *should* be concerned about this.
Part of the responsibility that the ASF Board delegates to each PMC is to ensure that all code ultimately included in the project is covered by appropriate licensing, so that downstream users of Apache software can be assured that this is the case. For "patches" included as attachments on a JIRA issue, we provide a convenient way for the poster to grant a license specifically for this patch. Therefore, sending all patches from non-committers through JIRA helps create an audit trail, and is therefore a Good Thing.
However, this will not be considered sufficient for "large" contributions, where the contributor is also asked to sign an Individual CLA[1]. How large is "large"? Clearly, we shouldn't need this for for a three-line patch submitted through JIRA with the appropriate radio button granting a license attrached. But would it have been OK to accept all of Trinidad as a humongous patch, simply by having someone have checked the button? Nope ... that is definitely "large" enough to require more. A contribution of this size (multiple source files and associated resources) is definitely at the point where the "should" in the page referenced below means REALLY REALLY should.
Is the original author of these classes willing to sign and fax in a CLA[2]? If so, that gets us over the first hurdle. If not, the files should definitely be removed.
The second problem is one that Wendy pointed out ... lack of license headers on the source files. While the details of this policy are currently being reviewed, standing practice is to use the complete header that you'll see on all the other MyFaces source files, in its entirety, at the top of every source file. As committers, this is something we should look for on incoming new source files before adding them to the source code repository. Because these files do not have such headers, they should be removed, and not re-added until both issues (CLA and license headers) have been addressed.
The line-endings issue is something that should also be fixed, but it's not make-or-break to have source code in the repository. But having these broken means you'll have to answer to people like Wendy :-).
I am more concerned about the fact that patches sent offline
and not through Jira.
Even if they had been, that would not have been sufficient in this case, for the reasons outlined above.
I mean, why ?
On 8/22/06, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> For a substantial contribution like this, we'll need a CLA on file in
> any case (even if the code came in through a jira-issue).
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 8/22/06, Wendy Smoak < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 8/22/06, Ernst Fastl < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > After verifying the patches I send him Catalin was so kind and commited the
> > > new sandbox component called PPRPanelGroup to the sandbox.
> >
> > Hi there! I think that's the commit I just commented on. :)
> >
> > Matthias already asked if there was a JIRA issue open, which might
> > address my concern about whether we have (or need) a contributor
> > license agreement [1] for the new code.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/index.html#clas
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
