I can see how a TLP would not be receptive to someone nit-picking their LICENSE/NOTICE files. Asking for patches, as Marvin suggests, is one approach that might work. Another approach is for someone with expertise in licensing to approach a TLP and offer to take them through a licensing review. Of course the TLP is at liberty to refuse, but if they accepted, some knowledge would undoubtedly rub off. I can speak only for the Calcite project, but I think we’d be happy to go through such a process every couple of years.
Julian > On Feb 3, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote: >> Perhaps it's time to ask TLP to review their LICENCE / NOTICE to be a little >> more consistent with current policy? > > I approached a bunch of Lucene PMC members about this at ApacheCon a couple > years back and they were receptive to the idea. > > However, I don't think we should approach any other TLPs, to be honest. A lot > of the issues we'd like to fix in TLP LICENSE and NOTICE files would improve > compliance with Apache *policy*, not law. TLPs are the Board's purview -- the > Incubator's writ only extends to podlings. > > We can let the Board know that poor TLP compliance with Apache licensing > policy is complicating our work in the Incubator, and perhaps the Board will > solicit our help as volunteers to work on that problem. But I think that if > an initiative to tackle TLP licensing documentation originates on > general@incubator, that's asking for trouble. The last thing we need is > conflict with the Board over ostensible IPMC overreach. > >> Any suggestion on how we would go about this? > > For any TLP we approach, I think we need to ensure that any proposed revisions > are real, valuable contributions to the community. > > * Provide patches, rather than point out flaws. > * Explain persuasively and coherently to the PMC why these patches should be > applied, while minimizing what we ask of them in terms of review and > research. > * If possible, provide project-specific improvements which will help the PMC > handle licensing better and with less effort in the future. > > We need to bear in mind that we are outsiders while a project's PMC members > are charged with legal oversight of their project, and that there is generally > limited energy and patience for dealing with legal stuff. > >> Does the policy need to be made clearer first? > > Yes, I think that's important -- it will help us to persuade PMCs that our > proposed changes are both correct and worthwhile. > > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
