Hi Craig,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
> ...I hope that this thread will inform future situations where a CCLA/SGA
> is descriptive but not extremely detailed
Thank you for your clarifications, they help make this archived thread
more useful.
-Bertrand
-
Hi Bertrand,
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:20 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
>> I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy
>> is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the
Hi Craig,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Craig Russell wrote:
> I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy
> is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the
> satisfaction of the contributor
So IIUC this means you agree with the way this
I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy is to
accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the satisfaction
of the contributor. We don't try to second-guess the intent of the grantor. We
assume that their own counsel have reviewed the grant.
Some
As we waited another 72 hours and no -1 has been cast the ip clearance
has been accepted and we will proceed to incorporate the code in
Felix.
regards,
Karl
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> Great!
>
> I think we can just resume this vote. I updated the ip-clearance form
> a
Great!
I think we can just resume this vote. I updated the ip-clearance form
and will wait another 72 hours.
If no -1 is cast within the next 72 hours I will wrap it up and we
will accept the contribution into Felix.
regards,
Karl
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:50 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Yes,
Yes, an ICLA on file should suffice.
John
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM Karl Pauls wrote:
> John,
>
> we have an ICLA for Jessica now.
>
> However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
> required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
> the top-level p
John,
we have an ICLA for Jessica now.
However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient.
Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times ov
John,
yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
Marz).
I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
SGA or a
Karl,
I just read the CCLA that was filed. I do not believe it is clear enough
in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
included. Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
Typi
John,
it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
that the provided Corporate CLA isn
Karl,
If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@ or
legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove the
Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
Apache Felix going forward). This is typically done as an SGA [1].
Hi John,
the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
(the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
"A software grant must be provided
Karl,
CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has given
approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache under
ICLAs. It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
outside of an ICLA/SGA.
Usually when projects come to us with an IP cleara
Hi John,
as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
regards,
Karl
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM
Hello,
Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if ICLAs/SGA
were received as well? The document indicates a CCLA was received from an
individual, which doesn't sound right.
John
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the Apache Felix project has receiv
Hi,
the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
Archive File Installer Extension.
- The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
- The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
- The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
The clearance passes by lazy c
17 matches
Mail list logo
