Re: Short form IP clearance

Stian's comment that the individual members of the IPMC be consulted simply due to their encountering IP issues more often is a very nice way to put it. My only small edit would be to not mention a -1 vote, but just to say "any objection or suggestion raised on the IPMC list should be considered

Re: Short form IP clearance

So perhaps the clarification (beyond removing SVN reference) would be that IPMC just records the IP clearance documents for TLPs, and each clearance mentioned on incubator list gives a possibility to get insight from IPMC members who do IP clearance more often than each TLP on its own. However

Re: Short form IP clearance

This has not been formally or officially requested and/or demanded by the Incubator to Legal Affairs. W/ my legal affairs hat on, I am not going to "take away" responsibility from a PMC unless it is required or asked or demanded of Legal Affairs. As of right now, this responsibility is still the

Re: Short form IP clearance

Just to follow up on this thread, were the changes ever completed? On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey

Re: Short form IP clearance

I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. We just need a new process defined. On Oct 31, 2015 23:58, "Greg Stein" wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > >... > > > I'd noted that > >

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: >> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. We >> just need a new process defined. > > Actually, since the

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. We > just need a new process defined. Actually, since the Incubator continues to receive criticism for its role in IP Clearance, I specifically

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > >> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >... > I'd noted that > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/httpd-mod_h2-clearance.html > never had a corresponding clearance/acceptance thread at general@i.a.o, > so it appears that the current instructions no

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at >

Re: Short form IP clearance

So basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes part of our public mailing lists, we're good? Would github PR's fall under the same premise, since the contents of those mails become public record? On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM Sam Ruby wrote: >

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 8:03 AM Sam Ruby wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > So basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes > part > > of our public mailing lists, we're good? > > If that code

Re: Short form IP clearance

I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP Clearance"? On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:19 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:13 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > > > Again my apologies for polluting this thread with

Re: Short form IP clearance

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:13 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > > Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts. > > Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?" > That would be a short one. My response would be No. :)

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > I think probably the better question is "which contributions require IP > Clearance"? "Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository and our public mailing lists must be processed like this, even if

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > So basically if someone attaches a patch to a JIRA, which becomes part > of our public mailing lists, we're good? If that code was all that poster's original work, not previously published elsewhere (particularly

Re: Short form IP clearance

First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on whatever issues or questions they may have. If it's time for a conversation between VP

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at > all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. > > What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that > as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at >> all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. >> >> What I will say, whether it has

Re: Short form IP clearance

Again my apologies for polluting this thread with tangential thoughts. Maybe I should start a new thread: "Is IP Clearance Optional?" My point is that some projects seem to be diligent, while others do not -- to the point that at times the IP Clearance process seems optional. I would expect

Re: Short form IP clearance

It certainly is not optional, and it would be very unfortunate if TLPs thought so or are unaware. One of the reasons I'd prefer Legal to be the clear owner. (But to be clear, that is separate from my original post) On Oct 22, 2015 6:13 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: > Again my

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at > all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling. > > What I will say, whether it has been said or not, that > as VP Legal, I will work w/ the Incubator on

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:10 PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this… > hehe... I did too :-) > But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and > I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t

Re: Short form IP clearance

Apologies for potentially coming out of left field on this… But I think that IP clearance is currently a difficult road to travel, and I worry that we are graduating podlings that don’t even know when or how to go down that road. It’s all too easy to merge a github pull request without

Short form IP clearance

Hey all, On the following page: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble, and some steps are not required. Specifically, steps 5, 7, and 8. Step 5: the code will be imported *somewhere*; there

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Hey all, > > On the following page: > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html > > The process steps do not align with the intent described in the Preamble, > and some steps are not required.

Re: Short form IP clearance

Greg, If I'm reading your email correctly, you're just saying that the Incubator is not responsible for processing IP Clearances in a lazy way. Projects should instead direct their IP clearance emails to <>. That <> is TBD. John On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:17 PM Greg Stein

Re: Short form IP clearance

I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't suggested changing that (tho I'd like to see them move under /legal/, I'm not

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein wrote: > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the Foundation in > matters of that Project. The forms/recording are valid, so I haven't >

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:45 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:40 PM Greg Stein wrote: > > > I believe a PMC is capable of performing IP clearance itself. They have a > > VP that is an Officer and can take responsibility for the

Re: Short form IP clearance

[trimmed response right now; in favor of getting a couple other voices] On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >... > What is this, randomly propose changes to the incubator month? > Has nothing to do with the Incubator, but with how a PMC records its IP

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> > Hey all, >> > >> > On the following page: >> >

Re: Short form IP clearance

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > On the following page: > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html > > > > The process steps do not