Podling commons-rdf fits that description. It started at GitHub in the
knowledge that ASF was a possible route; ALv2 from the start. (We
started at GH because there are people who would join discussions more
freely on GH.)
It so happens, the contributors are all ASF committers. With advice
On 26/03/15 16:36, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> the project. What I was looking for is a more general statement along the
> lines of what Benson has provided earlier on this thread, but coming
> from a VP of legal. This is for the purposes of documenting it for future
> projects coming to ASF.
From
IANAL, but this is what I learned when prepping code donations:
1) Every line of code is owned by some entity (a person or other legal
entity)
2) The person who owned it (may be different from the person who wrote it)
and added it to the collection of code did so under some terms.
3) If those term
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> ...what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside
> the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing
> ASF project?...
Following as much of our maturity model [1] as possible helps - in
This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the
back of my head for a while…
If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF),
but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project
(ALv2 license from day 1), wou
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
>> just for a future reference).
>
> Here:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> ...For Gro
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else,
> just for a future reference).
Here:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
> Groovy Core Team. If
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:03 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>>> much when the codebase is alread
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
>> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has
>> zero
>> effect bu
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change
> much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero
> effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant
> form
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
>
> If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
> either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then
> the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was
either proprietary or available under a
Le 26/03/15 15:11, Upayavira a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
>> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>>
>> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
>> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>>
>> " Subject to the terms and conditions of t
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
> "special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
There is nothing legal to cover here. Since all the code is AL 2.0,
legally, we are fine. The grant is (a) a bit of
And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything
"special"' about this situation that makes this appropriate?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
> transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache
There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual
transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all
members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to
the SGA at the time.
For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the
Groovy Core Team. If we could
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
> in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
>
> " Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
> hereby grants
Le 26/03/15 14:43, Guillaume Laforge a écrit :
> So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
> representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
> community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
Jim said "Just do it !"...
Let's discuss about the legal aspect ther
I really have no opinion on the matter (IANAL). I'm just a virtual
paper pusher, but I did want to have a clear understanding of the
requirements so that when folks ask us on secretary@, we can guide
them to the right place or give them the right advice.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Guillaume
So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead /
representative) can fill in the form, and say "on behalf of the Groovy
community", I grant the rights to the ASF?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny
wrote:
> I think we are going a bit too far here.
>
> Groovy has been
I think we are going a bit too far here.
Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back
in 2003). AL 2.0 says :
" Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor
hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irre
We've only seen positive messages from the community at large about the
move, all supporting and praising the decision, in various forms, whether
on our mailing-lists, or twitter, etc.
So the community is already aware of it and supports this move.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM Guillaume Laforge
wrote:
> So ultimately, what do we do?
> Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to
> sign something "on behalf of the Groovy community" or something like that?
> Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the c
Would the discussion on the dev@groovy list be enough 'evidence' for
the intent of the community to move to Apache?
Then it would possible be sufficient to archive those messages for
posterity (but I'm no lawyer)
Martijn
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> So ultimately
So ultimately, what do we do?
Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to
sign something "on behalf of the Groovy community" or something like that?
Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention
as a whole?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM,
If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant.
If the code was built by a large community under the apache license,
there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire
to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle
that we only accept cod
> In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it?
Nobody owns it.
> If
> I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it
> indicates that an entity known as "The Groovy community" owns it, in which
> case the SGA should probably come from them, no?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM James Carman
wrote:
> Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
> particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
> point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
> situation" with TinkerPop. We just did w
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> My view is that
>
> -All committers need an iCLA
I think that we can agree upon and nobody is refuting that.
> -Software that comes from outside the ASF needs to come with a software grant
This is the sticking point. How many grants
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:58 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> ...It would be good to have at least some codified guidelines
> somewhere on a wiki page or something that will help newly-incubating
> projects in similar situations
My view is that
-All committers need an iCLA
-Software that come
Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this
particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a
point where we said "this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this
situation" with TinkerPop. We just did what we thought was best at
the time. It would be good to have
31 matches
Mail list logo
