There are other legal items on that page that you should review and
decide if you can check off. If you're releasing, then I would expect
that page to have no unfinished tasks.
Hen
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your effort Henri,
>
> we will do as you
Thanks a lot for your effort Henri,
we will do as you suggested.
Do you thing we are missing anything else legally wise?
Regards
Antonio
On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Sounds like you should sign off on the first item in the Copyright
> section of http://incubator.apache
Sounds like you should sign off on the first item in the Copyright
section of http://incubator.apache.org/projects/amber.html as "n/a".
No code was relicensed to the ASF when Amber was created. Instead it
was a fork of Uni of Newcastle code and that copyright remains on the
code.
Hen
On Mon, Aug
Hi Henri,
thanks for taking care of this.
IANAL but technically yes I think that the OAuth 2.0 part of Amber can be
considered as a fork.
Before to perform the first release we followed what has been suggested in
LEGAL-134.
Did we miss something? Should we do something more or we can assume t
Hi Antonio,
This is about making sure that all software being contributed to
Apache is covered by CLAs (continuous contribution) or the software
license grant (single contribution). Legally it would also be fine to
fork software under a Category A license, though it's frowned upon
(ie: the status
