I think it is pretty clear that when the code lives in the public
somewhere else (i.e. source forge or Google code, etc.) it needs to go
through a grant. Likewise, it is often the best approach when a whole
code dump from a company or individual is brought in. Agreed, it is a
bit weird where the bar is set and it is not always obvious when the
threshold is met. So, there are a few hard and fast rules that apply
and there are a whole lot of gray areas. Same goes for checking the
box on JIRA vs. filling out a CLA or a CCLA.
The bottom line is, the grant is there for our protection as well as
the group donating. I'd rather be conservative and go the extra mile
and know that Lucene is protected when it is in doubt. It is easy to
fill out on our end and it forces the company donating to actually
think about it. The delay is almost always on the donator side.
That being said, I'm not particularly concerned about Trie, for the
record.
On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Regarding the software grant debate in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567
IMO, it's pretty subjective what needs a software grant, and I don't
think we should throw up any hard'n'fast rules about it. The bottom
line is that the PMC/committers are responsible for IP oversight for
everything committed.
Looking at past software grants from other projects, the bar looks to
be pretty high before projects typically go through it.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
