Re: Looking for a champion: resurrect log4j 1.x
Hi Matt, Thanks for replying. I think the main issues I found following the guide [1] for Apache CloudStack (ACS) are: - APIs are not backward compatible fully, certainly everywhere the imports have to be fixed - The config xml files are not fully compatible requiring some changes - Our codebase is pretty large with several maven modules/projects enabled by certain flags, testing changes and ensuring CloudStack works post-migration adds effort and risks - Lack of an automatic tooling that can do this reliably and efficiently (for example, the Go lang ecosystem has gofmt and other tooling to migrate codebase across std library/lang changes). - ACS's own tech debt and dependency issues: for example, we're using log4j-extras (https://logging.apache.org/log4j/extras/) which is completely discontinued, and have code tied around gson library (for one or more reason, we've hesitated to upgrade both log4j and gson dependencies) Appreciate all the hard work the Log4j team is doing and we'll report issues as/when we hit them. As a consumer of the dependency, 1.x gave us enough mileage and end of the day we want logging to be boring that just works; and therefore I'm simply exploring all possible options (both migration to 2.x or support/maintain 1.x fork) while understanding their tradeoffs. [1] https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/manual/migration.html On 2022/01/08 19:51:07 Matt Sicker wrote: > It would be nice if you filed any issues with Log4j2 about problems with > migration. It would have been nice to hear about these issues back when v1 > stopped development, but this is the next best time to do so. The Log4j team > are actively working to fill in any remaining gaps on backward compatibility; > making new releases of EOL software with numerous implementation errors > inherent to its architecture seems like going backwards. > > — > Matt Sicker > > > On Jan 8, 2022, at 13:45, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I agree and extend support for Andrew's remarks. Apache CloudStack too uses > > log4j 1.x and our use case is simply a logging library that 1.x just > > satisfies. The effort to migrate to 2.x is not quick, at least in our > > initial investigation and a migration may likely require huge effort in > > testing. > > > > Assuming this quick upgrade path doesn't exist, and I already read > > struggles by other projects trying to migrate to 2.x - maintaining 1.x and > > doing a 1.2.x release makes more sense than investing weeks in migration > > and testing to 2.x, while maintaining the same artifact IDs. I'm up for > > volunteering and supporting 1.x maintenance. > > > > Regards, > > Rohit Yadav > > PMC, Apache CloudStack > > > > On 2021/12/21 21:54:34 Andrew Purtell wrote: > >>> as for the v1 :: COBOL analogy, that’s not a bad comparison. Basically, > >> users who haven’t bothered to upgrade in 10 years will have to end up > >> paying astronomical costs for consultants who can still work on ancient > >> software effectively to help modify their systems. > >> > >> I have to take some exception to this. If the log4j 2.x configuration files > >> were compatible _enough_ with 1.x then taking this position would be > >> understandable. However, because they are not compatible in the way that > >> users require -- and the backwards compatibility is still marked as > >> 'experimental', even -- it is not great to blame users "who haven't > >> bothered to upgrade in 10 years". Turning this around, why is backwards > >> compatibility still experimental after 10 years? I am involved with several > >> Apache projects where we would love to upgrade from log4j 1 to log4j 2, and > >> have been talking about it for _years_. However, we have not been able to > >> easily do so because we actually care about operational cross-version > >> compatibility for our users. On some of these projects we are still stuck > >> on log4j 1. > >> > >> I also support continuing releasing for log4j 1.x, and would volunteer some > >> of my time to assist in the effort. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:34 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > >> > >>> Nobody in the Logging PMC is blocking a release here. What we don’t want > >>> is to falsely advertise that v1 is still under development. We already > >>> have > >>> a huge increase in mailing list, PR, and other traffic ever since > >>> Log4Shell, and if we resurrect v1, then it’ll quickly become impossible to > >>> keep up with all
Re: Looking for a champion: resurrect log4j 1.x
Hi all, I agree and extend support for Andrew's remarks. Apache CloudStack too uses log4j 1.x and our use case is simply a logging library that 1.x just satisfies. The effort to migrate to 2.x is not quick, at least in our initial investigation and a migration may likely require huge effort in testing. Assuming this quick upgrade path doesn't exist, and I already read struggles by other projects trying to migrate to 2.x - maintaining 1.x and doing a 1.2.x release makes more sense than investing weeks in migration and testing to 2.x, while maintaining the same artifact IDs. I'm up for volunteering and supporting 1.x maintenance. Regards, Rohit Yadav PMC, Apache CloudStack On 2021/12/21 21:54:34 Andrew Purtell wrote: > > as for the v1 :: COBOL analogy, that’s not a bad comparison. Basically, > users who haven’t bothered to upgrade in 10 years will have to end up > paying astronomical costs for consultants who can still work on ancient > software effectively to help modify their systems. > > I have to take some exception to this. If the log4j 2.x configuration files > were compatible _enough_ with 1.x then taking this position would be > understandable. However, because they are not compatible in the way that > users require -- and the backwards compatibility is still marked as > 'experimental', even -- it is not great to blame users "who haven't > bothered to upgrade in 10 years". Turning this around, why is backwards > compatibility still experimental after 10 years? I am involved with several > Apache projects where we would love to upgrade from log4j 1 to log4j 2, and > have been talking about it for _years_. However, we have not been able to > easily do so because we actually care about operational cross-version > compatibility for our users. On some of these projects we are still stuck > on log4j 1. > > I also support continuing releasing for log4j 1.x, and would volunteer some > of my time to assist in the effort. > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 12:34 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > > > Nobody in the Logging PMC is blocking a release here. What we don’t want > > is to falsely advertise that v1 is still under development. We already have > > a huge increase in mailing list, PR, and other traffic ever since > > Log4Shell, and if we resurrect v1, then it’ll quickly become impossible to > > keep up with all the activity given the size of the PMC. If any non-trivial > > work is to be done in v1, we’d prefer to see more than one person working > > on that, especially if we want to add more PMC members to oversee v1 in the > > first place. > > > > And as for the v1 :: COBOL analogy, that’s not a bad comparison. > > Basically, users who haven’t bothered to upgrade in 10 years will have to > > end up paying astronomical costs for consultants who can still work on > > ancient software effectively to help modify their systems. Was Maven even > > widely used back when v1 was popular? Or were people still using a mix of > > make or Ant? > > -- > > Matt Sicker > > > > > On Dec 21, 2021, at 07:13, Romain Manni-Bucau > > wrote: > > > > > > Le mar. 21 déc. 2021 à 12:33, Enrico Olivelli a > > > écrit : > > > > > >> Vladimir, > > >> I totally support this proposal. > > >> > > >> Which are actually the steps we need to cut a release of log4j 1.x ? > > >> - establish an Apache project ? > > >> > > > > > > 1. Send a patch to apply on > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/trunk > > > > > > > > >> - do the fix > > >> > > > > > > 2. Get it applied > > > > > > > > >> - cut a release > > >> > > >> Can this be done inside another Apache Project who "adopts" the log4j > > >> sources if the Logging Project doesn't want to do it ? > > >> > > > > > > The PMC of log4j2 is logging project so it should be done there, if not > > the > > > project can be forked inside Apache but should change of package until we > > > get the perms to reuse the same one which means likely as much work as > > just > > > getting it done at logging project so hope it is not needed ;). > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Enrico > > >> > > >> > > >> Il giorno mar 21 dic 2021 alle ore 08:36 Vladimir Sitnikov < > > >> sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > >> > > >>>> Just wondering, is it even fulfilling the criteria of incubation? > &
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Thanks Daniel for confirming. In that case I think we don't have any outstanding concerns, all the guidance and advice we've received on this thread has been attempted and resolved. Hi Paul - I think both Daniel and Justin have been answered and we can continue. Kindly review and start a formal "[IP CLEARANCE]" thread on general@incubator as per https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process tracking the IP clearance at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 Regards. On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 1:00 PM Daniel Widdis wrote: > > I have no concerns. I am not a member of the IPMC, just an interested > participant in the conversation. > > On 7/11/21, 11:25 PM, "Rohit Yadav" wrote: > > Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC, > > Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other > questions/concerns, or can we continue with the IP clearance vote? > It has been three weeks since this thread, while the Apache CloudStack > PMC has passed the vote to accept donations in April 2021. If there > are any, can you advise by the end of tomorrow? > > Regards. > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > Hi Justin, > > > > Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags > that is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party > code in vendor directory have been all removed too. > > > > Regards. > > > > On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean, > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the > >> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now > >> > in both the repositories being donated: > >> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack > >> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example > >> > vendor removed in this commit - > >> > > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152) > >> > >> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been > removed? What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of > 3rd party code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd > party code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non > ASF header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the > repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated > code? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Justin > >> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC, Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other questions/concerns, or can we continue with the IP clearance vote? It has been three weeks since this thread, while the Apache CloudStack PMC has passed the vote to accept donations in April 2021. If there are any, can you advise by the end of tomorrow? Regards. On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Rohit Yadav wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags that > is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party code > in vendor directory have been all removed too. > > Regards. > > On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean, wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the >> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now >> > in both the repositories being donated: >> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack >> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example >> > vendor removed in this commit - >> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152) >> >> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been removed? >> What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of 3rd party >> code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd party >> code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non ASF >> header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the >> repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated >> code? >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Hi Justin, Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags that is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party code in vendor directory have been all removed too. Regards. On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean, wrote: > Hi, > > > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the > > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now > > in both the repositories being donated: > > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack > > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example > > vendor removed in this commit - > > > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152 > ) > > So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been > removed? What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of > 3rd party code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with > 3rd party code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct > non ASF header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking > at the repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the > donated code? > > Thanks, > Justin > >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Hi Justin, Please see Daniel's email on the commits that introduce the vendor related codebase. Sharing the links of the two commits from Daniel's email: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/07febb7a6ba78e27224b37ad41e23bc4634b18b4 https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/29c9bb4593b98f47add0c3eb69253290fe02a893 However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now in both the repositories being donated: https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example vendor removed in this commit - https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152) I personally don't agree with Daniel's remarks that each and every commit of the git repositories must be checked and pass IP clearance, which is why I suggest instead of the git repository (with history) we can just import the codebase tarball/source using the git tag source as these tags/heads don't have the vendor codebase (i.e. the 3rd party codebase not written by the contributors): https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack/releases/tag/apache-license-2.0 https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/releases/tag/apache-license-2.0 I look forward to IPMC's advice, thanks. Regards. On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:33 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > > 3. On concern of IP on 3rd party codebase committed by authors - the > > codebase/changes are in the vendor directory which is where most of > > the (3rd party) code additions/deletions are seen. > > Is this code clearly marked as 3rd party code and has the correct 3rd party > headers? I don’t see any vendor directory or 3rd party code in the proposed > donation. Please point these out. I am yet to see any explanation to where > some of these large commits have come from, and that IMO is a concern. I can > only assume I’m missing some information, perhaps it would be helpful to list > each of those large commits and where the code originally come from, if they > were not the committers IP. > > Kind Regards, > Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Hi Daniel, Are you satisfied with my reply to your email/concerns? Please see if you haven't: https://markmail.org/message/bbqiqyj23na6vuaq Summary: 1. We've confirmation from all/main contributors by number of commits, code addition and deletion tracked at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 2. We've the IP grants and ICLA from the repository owner Sander van Harmelen which were also acknowledged by secretary@ ASF 3. On concern of IP on 3rd party codebase committed by authors - the codebase/changes are in the vendor directory which is where most of the (3rd party) code additions/deletions are seen. The vendor folder (or vendoring) is not part of the codebase but is included in the repositories for Go-based projects for build/tooling purposes as a standard practice (see https://golang.org/ref/mod#vendoring for more information). Many Apache Go-based projects include vendoring or a vendor folder with dependency codebase (for example: https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/tree/master/vendor, https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-cloudmonkey/tree/main/vendor). I think due to vendoring as a standard feature of Go-based projects and tooling, we can exclude IP concerns on vendoring. Or, if that's not satisfactory we can import the codebase from tarball (i.e. lose the git history) excluding the vendor folder and later re-generate the vendor folder using the "go mod tidy" or "go mod vendor" command post codebase import or during building. Regards. On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:17 PM Paul Angus wrote: > > > @Rohit Yadav can you ensure that Daniel is happy that his questions have > been answered so that we can continue > + you need to cc me specifically if you need my attention. > > > Kind regards > > Paul Angus > > -Original Message- > From: Justin Mclean > Sent: 09 July 2021 02:04 > To: Paul Angus > Cc: Sander van Harmelen ; > > Subject: Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform > > HI, > > > I've seen that you had some queries/concerns regarding the number of > > people who have/haven't given consent (Tue 22/06/2021 13:46 GMT), It's > > hard to follow the whole thread now, but it's not clear to me that the > > queries/concerns have been answered to your satisfaction. > > I’m not sure the project has answered Daniel's questions about IP provenance. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
ACS PMC, The IP clearance is tracked at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 and we have been in the position since last week to start the vote on incubator@. I've asked a few times but haven't heard from our volunteer ASF member Paul Angus. As my last attempt to Paul - are you able to (1) check the XML doc (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml), (2) post a message to general@incubator asking for clearance to be checked (72hrs window), (3) post a result thread and let project know code is cleared for import? ... as per https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process In the meanwhile I ask ASC PMC chair Gabriel to prepare to volunteer or help find an appropriate volunteer and do (1)-(3) starting Monday/next week. Tagging Sebastien too who has been IP clearance officer for a couple of donations under the ACS project - who may volunteer or advise us. I'm happy to volunteer but I'm neither an officer nor a member of the ASF; but I may have incubator karma (http://people.apache.org/~rohit) if that means ability to commit the IP clearance xml doc to incubator SVN. I've committed and updated the IP clearance XML today https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml which must be checked by whoever starts the vote on general@incubator. Thanks and regards. On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:33 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > > Hi Dan and all of IPMC, > > Sorry I missed the previous email [1] on the thread as I'm not subscribed to > the general@ ML and missed the email. (Thanks Justin for the heads up) > I kindly request reply-all (to include the ACS PMC) or include me if you're > looking for a response from me, since this is rather a public thread that the > ACS PMCs may also want to be copied to. > > Based on > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=a > (contributors by additions of code), all the top #5 contributors have agreed > or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on the ML, > namely (using their Github handles): grubernaut, svanharmelen, radeksimko, > benjvi, and cezarsa. > > (While code deletions may not be relevant?) ... based on > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=d > (contributors by deletion of code), all the top #3 contributors have also > agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on > the ML, namely (using their Github handles): svanharmelen, grubernaut, and > cezarsa. > > These Github handles/contributors can be cross referenced against the Github > issue [2] tracking IP clearance for documentation purposes. > > Can the IPMC review this tracker issue [2] by the end of this week and advise > if there are any objections and actions we're supposed to do before starting > a vote? Lastly, can the IPMC also advise what's the process of being granted > karma to start a vote for IP clearance, do a ACS PMC who is also an ASF > member or our ACS PMC chair need to do that (asking in case I need to > volunteer and start the vote)? Thanks. > > [1] https://markmail.org/message/yxqh5ndu4vnotrti > [2] The IP clearance tracking issue: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 > > Regards. > > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: >> >> All, >> >> We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process [1] >> and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and software >> grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been acknowledged >> by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been asked for any >> objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import initiatives. To >> date we've not received any objections from contributors and most >> contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on the Github >> issue [2]. >> >> Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the >> completed IP clearance XML form >> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml), >> (2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result >> thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import. >> >> I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any >> further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@ >> or are busy and aren't able to do so this time? >> If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC >> chair Gabriel
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Hi Dan and all of IPMC, Sorry I missed the previous email [1] on the thread as I'm not subscribed to the general@ ML and missed the email. (Thanks Justin for the heads up) I kindly request reply-all (to include the ACS PMC) or include me if you're looking for a response from me, since this is rather a public thread that the ACS PMCs may also want to be copied to. Based on https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=a (contributors by additions of code), all the top #5 contributors have agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on the ML, namely (using their Github handles): grubernaut, svanharmelen, radeksimko, benjvi, and cezarsa. (While code deletions may not be relevant?) ... based on https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=d (contributors by deletion of code), all the top #3 contributors have also agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on the ML, namely (using their Github handles): svanharmelen, grubernaut, and cezarsa. These Github handles/contributors can be cross referenced against the Github issue [2] tracking IP clearance for documentation purposes. Can the IPMC review this tracker issue [2] by the end of this week and advise if there are any objections and actions we're supposed to do before starting a vote? Lastly, can the IPMC also advise what's the process of being granted karma to start a vote for IP clearance, do a ACS PMC who is also an ASF member or our ACS PMC chair need to do that (asking in case I need to volunteer and start the vote)? Thanks. [1] https://markmail.org/message/yxqh5ndu4vnotrti [2] The IP clearance tracking issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 Regards. On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > All, > > We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process > [1] and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and > software grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been > acknowledged by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been > asked for any objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import > initiatives. To date we've not received any objections from contributors > and most contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on > the Github issue [2]. > > Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the > completed IP clearance XML form ( > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml), > (2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result > thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import. > > I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any > further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@ > or are busy and aren't able to do so this time? > If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC > chair Gabriel to volunteer or find a volunteer per [1]. > (I'm happy to volunteer as well, looks like I can svn commit the XML file. > I'll discuss/ask again on Wed) > > [1] IP clearance process: > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process > [2] Github issue tracking IP clearance: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 > > Regards. > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > >> All, >> >> Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors >> via this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process: >> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 >> >> As per >> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process >> I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on >> Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any >> objections). >> >> Regards. >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to >>> track IP >>> > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all >>> > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree >>> over >>> > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs. >>> >>> While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the >>> major contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already >>> have that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and >>> continue. It might be possible t
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
All, We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process [1] and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and software grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been acknowledged by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been asked for any objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import initiatives. To date we've not received any objections from contributors and most contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on the Github issue [2]. Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the completed IP clearance XML form ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml), (2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import. I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@ or are busy and aren't able to do so this time? If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC chair Gabriel to volunteer or find a volunteer per [1]. (I'm happy to volunteer as well, looks like I can svn commit the XML file. I'll discuss/ask again on Wed) [1] IP clearance process: https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process [2] Github issue tracking IP clearance: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 Regards. On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > All, > > Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors via > this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 > > As per > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process > I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on > Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any > objections). > > Regards. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to >> track IP >> > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all >> > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over >> > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs. >> >> While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the >> major contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already >> have that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and >> continue. It might be possible that other IPMC members might have a >> different view on this. >> >> > This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process: >> > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html >> >> It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a >> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of >> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still >> slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I >> would guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in >> some cases their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person >> states that any contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have >> their employers permission to do so. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Justin > >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
All, Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors via this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 As per https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any objections). Regards. On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track > IP > > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all > > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over > > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs. > > While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the major > contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already have > that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and > continue. It might be possible that other IPMC members might have a > different view on this. > > > This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process: > > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html > > It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a > Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of > IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still > slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I > would guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in > some cases their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person > states that any contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have > their employers permission to do so. > > Kind Regards, > Justin
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track IP clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs. I'm not subscribed to the legal or general@ lists so unless people copied me in or did a reply all (incl ACS PMC) I wouldn't have got email, I'll check again what Roman may have advised. This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process: https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html I suggest this new approach be documented on the above or relevant page. Thanks. Regards. On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 11:36 am Justin Mclean, wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the information and history there, that was quite helpful. > > My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by > Sander ( > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314&branch=master) > who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community > providers and then got it eventually transferred back. > > From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and > grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors. > > > You would be in a a better position to judge this, but I can see 8 to 10 > people (out of the 39) that have probably made significant contributions, > some very significant. It unclear to me if these people were contacted. > > I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who > shared their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our > best to reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major > contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are > advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors. > > > My very first email in that thread suggested you would need ICLAs from the > major contributors. Having an agreement via other means is probably fine, > but not the usual process. Roman (V.P. Legal) also suggested you contact > these contributors. > > The examples you've provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all > contributors. > > > Not all, but they have ICLAs from all major contributors. More importantly > the information is in a form where it easy to see what has been provided > which makes accepting the IP clearance an easy process. > > Kind Regard, > Justin >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Thanks Sander for the clarification. Regards. On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 11:22 am Sander van Harmelen, wrote: > A, I just now see your message Rohit (it got in my spambox). But yes, I > think the mail I've send just now is pretty much inline with your > explanation in this mail... > > Sander > > On 23 Jun 2021, at 07:30, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by > Sander ( > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314&branch=master) > who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community > providers and then got it eventually transferred back. > > From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and > grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors. > I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared > their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to > reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major > contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are > advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors. The examples you've > provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all contributors. > > Originally I did attempt to get Hashicorp (the company, mainly a manager > and their CTO) to do the CCLA etc but they weren't interested and didnt > want to get involved but agreed to transfer the repo back to Sander. From > what I understand the project wasn't Hashicorp company project but was > started by Sander, was then under their Github org but eventually archived. > From email exchanges I had with Hashicorp it would unlikely their CTO or > managers be suing any parties for the initiatives and in fact offered to > work with ACS community in publishing the Terraform provider under ACS > official registry. As far as we had inquired Hashicorp the company has no > interest in maintaining the project any further, but users in ACS community > need it to be supported. Sander could you confirm if I got anything wrong? > Thanks. > > Regards. > > On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 10:41 am Justin Mclean, > wrote: > >> HI, >> >> > Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner >> of the codebase/repos. >> >> My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they >> are probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct? >> >> Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I >> assume are releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to >> that repo were/are Hashicorp employees. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Justin >> >> 1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack >> 2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack >> 3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/ > >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by Sander ( https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314&branch=master) who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community providers and then got it eventually transferred back. >From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors. I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors. The examples you've provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all contributors. Originally I did attempt to get Hashicorp (the company, mainly a manager and their CTO) to do the CCLA etc but they weren't interested and didnt want to get involved but agreed to transfer the repo back to Sander. From what I understand the project wasn't Hashicorp company project but was started by Sander, was then under their Github org but eventually archived. >From email exchanges I had with Hashicorp it would unlikely their CTO or managers be suing any parties for the initiatives and in fact offered to work with ACS community in publishing the Terraform provider under ACS official registry. As far as we had inquired Hashicorp the company has no interest in maintaining the project any further, but users in ACS community need it to be supported. Sander could you confirm if I got anything wrong? Thanks. Regards. On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 10:41 am Justin Mclean, wrote: > HI, > > > Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner > of the codebase/repos. > > My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they > are probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct? > > Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I assume > are releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to that > repo were/are Hashicorp employees. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > 1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack > 2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack > 3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner of the codebase/repos. Regards. On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 4:56 am Justin Mclean, wrote: > Hi, > > As far as I know this is the situation. If anyone has any information to > add please do so. > - We have no CCLA or grant from Hashicorp, who probably own the IP. It > would be nice to have clarity on who actually does own the IP. > - We have one ICLA from a major contributor who has also filled in a > software grant. That grant doesn't mention Hashicorp. > - We have agreement from some of the major contributors but not all. It is > unknown if these contributors have signed ICLAs. > - We have a code base who license has been changed without all > contributors agreeing. That license was incompatible with the ASF one. > > The above situation makes me feel unconformable and I think most would > agree that this is highly unusual as far as code donations go. > > Compare this to say how this project handled IP clearance. [1][2] > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > 1. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-samples/issues/41 > 2. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-spring-boot-project/issues/428
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Many thanks Dave for replying. Justin - thanks for replying. I think Dave has answered most of the questions. The reason this thread is copied to both ACS PMC and general@ is because this was intended as a starting point for ACS PMC and it was not clear to me how the IP clearance process works. The IP clearance wiki is under incubator but the ACS project is not in incubator. Hope you understand the underlying premise requires the discussion to be held publicly (i.e. understand the process, get an officer or understand how to do it wrt our case) - I think there is nothing that needs to be discussed in secrecy. Again thanks all, I think I've received all the help and guidance I need and we got an IP clearance officer/ASF member volunteer (Paul). I agree with Dave's summary - the ACS PMC has voted and agreed with the initiative, all major contributors have agreed too on the relicensing and initiative, Sander has already re-licensed the codebases and submitted ICLA and software grants doc. The ASF secretary has also acknowledged Sander's ICLA, and now we're just waiting for their grants acknowledgement because Paul can start the vote on general@. (Pl correct/advise if we need to do anything else or missed anything else, thanks) Regards. Regards. On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:57 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi - > > This IPMC member is finding this whole discussion circular. > > I’m including this link [1] from the discussion on legal-discuss@ which > did include replies from other contributors. > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9d0eab51653bfa6ead4b61e2ea0a7b435c0d3195ff1ed2ae3fdeb8f0%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > IMO - This is spot on and the most that is required here is that: > > (a) The Cloudstack PMC wants to include the software, and understands the > risk in the rare and unlikely case that any of the original contributors > wants to deny use. If that happens then the PMC will handle the situation > as all PMCs must. If there is a failure there then that is a Board > situation. > (b) A SGA has been provided which indicates that Hashicorp considered that > all license and ownership issues are moot. OR - Sander’s ICLA and now > current holding of the software. > > > > > On Jun 22, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Justin Mclean > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Please stop mixing public and private lists. Feel free to forward any > email to the relevant private list but don’t mix them as it's very easy for > something that should only appear on a private list to become public. > > > >> The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main > author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and > all top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative > including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now). > > > > There are more than 5 major contributors and I’m not sure that your top > 5 contributors have actually agreed. Please provide documentations that > shows this. > > If you followed the thread above: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3a96f1220393409c3ca2ce619786fb23fdac3b334a00584d26cf1ecd%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7e9b5767102ddfa3b871f6252d4fa8ef5e6ff8c8af044b314991682a%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r522c7ef78f19bd60f6f3c156e607e4b655e7683d7f7f176731b9d617%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r43ba1d098675bb48e4fed80e34b2123364e9a1e3bbf98223bfda2ad7%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > > > > > If you look at the IP clearance documentation it states "Either an > Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software Grant. All > authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign one of > the three documents and send to secretary” > > > > Has this been done? > > Justin - you seem to be asserting ownership rights where there may be none. > > > > > >> I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but > feel free to advise: > >> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack > >> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstac > > > > Who owns the IP? Just because Sander is the original author of some of > the code doesn't mean he owns the IP. If he did the work while he was > employed by Hashicorp (and I don't know if this was the case) it’s likely > they own the IP not him, but his employment contract may have stated > something else. Again the same applies for the other contributors. > > We have no need to see employment contracts. Since Hashicorp transferred > the project to Sander then he has the rights AFAICT. > > > > > A further complication is the code wasn’t under a license that is > compatible with the Apache license. > > > > I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide > documentation that shows otherwise. > > I think that this IP Clearance will need an actual vote (as I don’t think > it will be lazy consensus.) > > All The Best, > Dave > > > >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Justin, On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 7:22 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml > > and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to > priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for > clearance to be checked. > > Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1. > > Also I’m not 100% that this is valid as it only lists Sander van Harmelen > as the IP owner, you would need permission from Hashicorp right? > The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and all top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now). I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but feel free to advise: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack Regards. > Kind Regards, > Justin
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Paul, ACS PMC /cc general@incubator, Sander, (attempt #2 - the previous email was dropped due to larger grants PDF attachment size) Following the process described on IP clearance [1], we've received acknowledgement Sander's ICLA and since you're volunteering I've committed the outline XML here with you stated as the IP clearance ASF member/officer: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml According to [1] we now need to wait for the ASF secretary to acknowledge the software grants (Sander has submitted a signed PDF, attached): "the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided a copy of the grant or CCLA in any case... Note: the grant form must be acknowledged before continuing. " Next steps: 1. We wait for secretary@ ASF to acknowledge Sander's grant. 2. Paul to review the re-licensed codebase per the grants and IP clearance outline: https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for clearance to be checked. Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1. 4. Post a [RESULT] to close the thread and let the ACS project/PMC know that the code has been cleared for import. 5. Rohit to help import the codebase to: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go ... and Sander to archive the source repositories. Let me know if I missed anything, thanks. [1] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html Regards. On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:26 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > Paul, ACS PMC /cc general@incubator, Sander, > > Following the process described on IP clearance [1], we've received > acknowledgement Sander's ICLA and since you're volunteering I've committed > the outline XML here with you stated as the IP clearance ASF member/officer: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml > > According to [1] we now need to wait for the ASF secretary to acknowledge > the software grants (Sander has submitted a signed PDF, attached): > "the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided a copy of > the grant or CCLA in any case... Note: the grant form must be acknowledged > before continuing. " > > Next steps: > > 1. We wait for secretary@ ASF to acknowledge Sander's grant. > > 2. Paul to review the re-licensed codebase per the grants and IP clearance > outline: > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack > > 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml > and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to > priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for > clearance to be checked. > Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1. > > 4. Post a [RESULT] to close the thread and let the ACS project/PMC know > that the code has been cleared for import. > > 5. Rohit to help import the codebase to: > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go > ... and Sander to archive the source repositories. > > Let me know if I missed anything, thanks. > > [1] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html > > Regards. > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:16 PM Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > All, Sander has confirmed sending the signed software grants PDF but I > don't see it. Does the PMC list filter emails with attachments? Any PMC > able to see his email? > > > > Regards. > > > > On Mon, 21 Jun, 2021, 5:42 pm Rohit Yadav, wrote: > >> > >> Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per > https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors. > The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author > Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet. > >> > >> Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and > send the software grants form ( > https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) to ACS PMC. He has > already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the codebase here: > (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags on latest branch > both owned by Sander) > >> > >> https:
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
All, Sander has confirmed sending the signed software grants PDF but I don't see it. Does the PMC list filter emails with attachments? Any PMC able to see his email? Regards. On Mon, 21 Jun, 2021, 5:42 pm Rohit Yadav, wrote: > Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per > https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors. > The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author > Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet. > > Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and send > the software grants form ( > https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) to ACS PMC. He has > already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the codebase here: > (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags on latest branch > both owned by Sander) > > https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack (the main > terraform provider) > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack > > I've asked him to specify both repos under Exhibit A of software-grants. > I'll check again and then ask you Paul or Gabriel whoever can help with IP > clearance submission which requires I think to check the donated codebases > and create an XML file at: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/ > (older cloudstack related xmls can be used as examples/references) > > Regards. > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Paul Angus > wrote: > >> @Rohit Yadav >> >> >> >> I can do it as a Member or Gabriel can do it as an officer. >> >> >> >> As per the IP clearance page you reference, do you have the software >> grant ready to go? >> >> >> >> “A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either be >> done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software Grant >> Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to >> secret...@apache.org” >> >> >> >> Note: “Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a >> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of >> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary (reference >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas >> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>).” >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Paul Angus >> >> >> >> *From:* Rohit Yadav >> *Sent:* 21 June 2021 10:25 >> *To:* ; >> general@incubator.apache.org >> *Subject:* IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform >> >> >> >> All, >> >> We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under >> ACS PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the >> same has already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa >> >> As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to >> follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already >> been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred >> by Hashicorp ( >> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all >> major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record >> (see separate thread to ACS PMC). >> >> As part of IP clearance ( >> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it >> says: >> >> "IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a >> Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact >> your project chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma >> is also required. Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not >> have it." >> >> Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our >> chair Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP >> clearance officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which >> may I request general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks. >> >> >> Regards. >> >
Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors. The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet. Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and send the software grants form (https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) to ACS PMC. He has already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the codebase here: (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags on latest branch both owned by Sander) https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack (the main terraform provider) https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack I've asked him to specify both repos under Exhibit A of software-grants. I'll check again and then ask you Paul or Gabriel whoever can help with IP clearance submission which requires I think to check the donated codebases and create an XML file at: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/ (older cloudstack related xmls can be used as examples/references) Regards. On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Paul Angus wrote: > @Rohit Yadav > > > > I can do it as a Member or Gabriel can do it as an officer. > > > > As per the IP clearance page you reference, do you have the software grant > ready to go? > > > > “A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either be > done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software Grant > Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to > secret...@apache.org” > > > > Note: “Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a > Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of > IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary (reference > http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas>).” > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Paul Angus > > > > *From:* Rohit Yadav > *Sent:* 21 June 2021 10:25 > *To:* ; > general@incubator.apache.org > *Subject:* IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform > > > > All, > > We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under > ACS PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the > same has already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa > > As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to > follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already > been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred > by Hashicorp ( > https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all > major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record > (see separate thread to ACS PMC). > > As part of IP clearance ( > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it > says: > > "IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a Member > of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact your > project chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma is > also required. Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not > have it." > > Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our > chair Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP > clearance officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which > may I request general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks. > > > Regards. >
IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
All, We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under ACS PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the same has already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred by Hashicorp (https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record (see separate thread to ACS PMC). As part of IP clearance ( https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it says: "IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact your project chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it." Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our chair Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP clearance officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which may I request general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks. Regards.
