On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:36 AM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:52 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being > > > relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed. > > > > Well, it is needed, even where that devolves to "has all SGA paperwork > > for this incoming contribution and corresponding ICLAs been received > > and acknowledged?" > > > > > In addition, like any other podling coming in, work may be needed > > > to generate a valid release from the donation. It may not just work. > > > > That is independent of the IP Clearance. It's the same issue as any > > brand new work created here by committers with ICLAs. Nowhere > > does the ASF enforce 'code quality' or similar metrics. If it doesn't > > build, it's open source, so just reassemble all the pieces. > > > > > This may be showing some of the issues with the template; the terms are > confusing and/or incorrect. > > For example, looking at it more deeply, the template contains three > sections: > > 1) Identify the codebase. Looking at that term, I would think it's a > natural first step that involves identifying which code is going to be > imported into the ASF repository. Instead it's talking about trademarks. > 2) Copyright. As a term that's simple, but too simple given we have no > copyright-only paperwork. > 2i). The section then goes on to suggest that rights are transferred to the > ASF (very misleading), and says "It is only necessary to transfer rights > for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.", > which is gobbledegook. The words package, core and new code produced by the > project are all undefined and vague. > 2ii) A second section checks that the files have been updated to reflect > the 'new ASF copyright'; which is also inaccurate and misleading. > 3) Verify distribution rights. Sounds interesting. > 3i) The first section is to check all active committers have a signed CLA > on record. Fair enough. Perhaps a better fit for section 2; if I had a > belief that section 2 should stay :) > 3ii) A reminder about the possibility of CCLAs with average wording (for > example, it doesn't say who may require this). This probably speaks to > inadequate documentation elsewhere (on the CLA page?) and is not something > we should have as an explicit check. > 3iii) On to one of the ones that started the thread; a compatibility check > for any non-Apache licensed content within the project. > 3iv) And the other; basically the same compatibility check with a > limited/similar but not the same approach. > > The paragraph that comes after does a fair, though hand-wavy job, or > summarizing the above: > > "Generally, the result of checking off these items will be a Software > Grant, CLA, and Corporate CLA for ASF licensed code, which must have no > dependencies upon items whose licenses that are incompatible with the > Apache License." > > Also noting that item 3 in the process says that a software grant is > required (bad name imo to use the word 'grant', we really need to fix > that). Which then talks about 'the traditional License Agreement', which is > very vague, or a CCLA Schedule B, which given we don't require that > committers have CCLAs signed is probably not something we should propose as > an equal. > > Basically this line, and therefore the entire page, assumes that an > incubator project is a code donation from a corporation. > > --- > > I was surprised to see nothing here on the process for who to get ICLAs > signed by. Only those becoming committers, or any previous contributors > (and how to determine which contributors). It also should, as a page, > consider whether having the code previously under Apache 2.0, or a category > A license, implies a different process. > > I saw you were working on policy cleanup John - could I take a stab at a > rewrite of this, or is it a) got a lot of historical debate I've missed > that I should learn about or b) something you're already working on? > > Go for it. IP Clearance is way down on my list because: - Its not usual for a podling to receive a subsequent donation. - I hate that the IPMC is responsible for all TLPs IP Clearance. John > Thanks, > > Hen >
