subject:"\[VOTE\] Accept java\-driver"

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

2023-10-12 Thread Michael Shuler


+1

(late to the vote, but wanted to publicly note my support)

Kind regards,
Michael

On 10/2/23 23:52, Mick Semb Wever wrote:

The donation of the java-driver is ready for its IP Clearance vote.
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/cassandra-java-driver.html 



The SGA has been sent to the ASF.  This does not require acknowledgement 
before the vote.


Once the vote passes, and the SGA has been filed by the ASF Secretary, 
we will request ASF Infra to move the datastax/java-driver as-is to 
apache/java-driver


This means all branches and tags, with all their history, will be kept.  
A cleaning effort has already cleaned up anything deemed not needed.


Background for the donation is found in CEP-8: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-8%3A+DataStax+Drivers+Donation 


PMC members, please take note of (and check) the IP Clearance 
requirements when voting.


The vote will be open for 72 hours (or longer). Votes by PMC members are 
considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding 
+1s and no -1's.


regards,
Mick

[RESULT][VOTE] Accept java-driver

2023-10-10 Thread Mick Semb Wever

>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours (or longer). Votes by PMC members are 
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and 
> no -1's.



Vote passes with 30 +1s (ten binding).


This page is updated:
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/cassandra-java-driver.html


I've created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-25069

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

2023-10-07 Thread guo Maxwell

+1

Benedict  于2023年10月7日周六 18:27写道：

> +1
>
> On 7 Oct 2023, at 10:03, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> 
>
> LEGAL-658
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 17:43, J. D. Jordan 
> wrote:
>
>> The software grant agreement covers all donated code.  The ASF does not
>> need any historical agreements. The agreement giving the ASF copyright etc
>> is the Software Grant Agreement. Yes, any future work done after donation
>> needs to be covered by ASF CLAs.
>>
>> But happy to see someone ask legal@ to confirm this so we can move
>> forward.
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2023, at 3:33 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Are we certain about that? It’s unclear to me from the published
>> guidance; would be nice to get legal to weigh in to confirm to make sure we
>> aren’t skipping any steps, as we haven’t been involved until now so haven’t
>> the visibility. At the very least it reads to me that anyone expected to be
>> maintaining the software going forwards should have a CLA on file with ASF,
>> but I’d have expected the ASF to also want a record of the historic CLAs.
>>
>> On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:28, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 17:50, Jeremiah Jordan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is covered by the grant agreement?
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>>>
>>> 2. Licensor represents that, to Licensor's knowledge, Licensor is
>>> legally entitled to grant the above license. Licensor agrees to notify
>>> the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which Licensor becomes
>>> aware and which makes or would make Licensor's representations in this
>>> License Agreement inaccurate in any respect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2023 at 4:35:08 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>>>
 Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can
 verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are
 satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS,
 AFAICT.

 Of course it shouldn’t be shared publicly but not sure how PMC can
 fulfil its verification function here without it

>>>
>>
>> Correct, thanks JD.
>>
>> These are CLAs that were submitted to DS, not to ASF.
>>
>> It is DS's legal responsibility to ensure what they are donating they
>> have the right to (i.e. have the copyright), when submitting the SGA.  It's
>> not on the ASF or the PMC to verify this.  Here we're simply demonstrating
>> that we (DS) have done that due diligence, and are keeping record of it.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
you are the apple of my eye !

+1On 7 Oct 2023, at 10:03, Mick Semb Wever wrote:LEGAL-658On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 17:43, J. D. Jordan wrote:The software grant agreement covers all donated code. The ASF does not need any historical agreements. The agreement giving the ASF copyright etc is the Software Grant Agreement. Yes, any future work done after donation needs to be covered by ASF CLAs.But happy to see someone ask legal@ to confirm this so we can move forward.On Oct 6, 2023, at 3:33 AM, Benedict wrote:Are we certain about that? It’s unclear to me from the published guidance; would be nice to get legal to weigh in to confirm to make sure we aren’t skipping any steps, as we haven’t been involved until now so haven’t the visibility. At the very least it reads to me that anyone expected to be maintaining the software going forwards should have a CLA on file with ASF, but I’d have expected the ASF to also want a record of the historic CLAs.On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:28, Mick Semb Wever wrote:On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 17:50, Jeremiah Jordan wrote:
I think this is covered by the grant agreement?https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf2. Licensor represents that, to Licensor's knowledge, Licensor is
legally entitled to grant the above license. Licensor agrees to notify
the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which Licensor becomes
aware and which makes or would make Licensor's representations in this
License Agreement inaccurate in any respect.

On Oct 5, 2023 at 4:35:08 AM, Benedict wrote:

Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS, AFAICT.Of course it shouldn’t be shared publicly but not sure how PMC can fulfil its verification function here without itCorrect, thanks JD.These are CLAs that were submitted to DS, not to ASF.It is DS's legal responsibility to ensure what they are donating they have the right to (i.e. have the copyright), when submitting the SGA. It's not on the ASF or the PMC to verify this. Here we're simply demonstrating that we (DS) have done that due diligence, and are keeping record of it.

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

2023-10-07 Thread Mick Semb Wever

LEGAL-658


On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 at 17:43, J. D. Jordan  wrote:

> The software grant agreement covers all donated code.  The ASF does not
> need any historical agreements. The agreement giving the ASF copyright etc
> is the Software Grant Agreement. Yes, any future work done after donation
> needs to be covered by ASF CLAs.
>
> But happy to see someone ask legal@ to confirm this so we can move
> forward.
>
> On Oct 6, 2023, at 3:33 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>
> 
> Are we certain about that? It’s unclear to me from the published guidance;
> would be nice to get legal to weigh in to confirm to make sure we aren’t
> skipping any steps, as we haven’t been involved until now so haven’t the
> visibility. At the very least it reads to me that anyone expected to be
> maintaining the software going forwards should have a CLA on file with ASF,
> but I’d have expected the ASF to also want a record of the historic CLAs.
>
> On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:28, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 17:50, Jeremiah Jordan 
> wrote:
>
>> I think this is covered by the grant agreement?
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>>
>> 2. Licensor represents that, to Licensor's knowledge, Licensor is
>> legally entitled to grant the above license. Licensor agrees to notify
>> the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which Licensor becomes
>> aware and which makes or would make Licensor's representations in this
>> License Agreement inaccurate in any respect.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2023 at 4:35:08 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>>
>>> Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can
>>> verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are
>>> satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS,
>>> AFAICT.
>>>
>>> Of course it shouldn’t be shared publicly but not sure how PMC can
>>> fulfil its verification function here without it
>>>
>>
>
> Correct, thanks JD.
>
> These are CLAs that were submitted to DS, not to ASF.
>
> It is DS's legal responsibility to ensure what they are donating they have
> the right to (i.e. have the copyright), when submitting the SGA.  It's not
> on the ASF or the PMC to verify this.  Here we're simply demonstrating that
> we (DS) have done that due diligence, and are keeping record of it.
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

2023-10-06 Thread J. D. Jordan

The software grant agreement covers all donated code. The ASF does not need any historical agreements. The agreement giving the ASF copyright etc is the Software Grant Agreement. Yes, any future work done after donation needs to be covered by ASF CLAs.But happy to see someone ask legal@ to confirm this so we can move forward.On Oct 6, 2023, at 3:33 AM, Benedict wrote:Are we certain about that? It’s unclear to me from the published guidance; would be nice to get legal to weigh in to confirm to make sure we aren’t skipping any steps, as we haven’t been involved until now so haven’t the visibility. At the very least it reads to me that anyone expected to be maintaining the software going forwards should have a CLA on file with ASF, but I’d have expected the ASF to also want a record of the historic CLAs.On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:28, Mick Semb Wever wrote:On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 17:50, Jeremiah Jordan wrote:
I think this is covered by the grant agreement?https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf2. Licensor represents that, to Licensor's knowledge, Licensor is
legally entitled to grant the above license. Licensor agrees to notify
the Foundation of any facts or circumstances of which Licensor becomes
aware and which makes or would make Licensor's representations in this
License Agreement inaccurate in any respect.

40 matches

Mail list logo