Gang, On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 05:30:53PM +0100, Tim Ellison wrote: > Mark Hindess wrote: > > On 17 May 2006 at 12:30, "Daniel Gandara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Mark Hindess wrote: > >>> Daniel, > >>> > >>> I've just contributed a JIRA, > >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-471 > >>> that integrates the ITC rmi implementation as modules/rmi. (The jsr14 > >>> version. Only the code at the moment, I creating the scripts/patches > >>> for the tests next.) > >> We've been working on improvements to the rmi test suite, > >> I've contributed that at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-473 > >> (I created a new JIRA since previous one HARMONY-211 was closed-) > >> so please take that test suite. > > > > Thanks for the heads-up. I just saw the JIRA messages. (I notice it > > includes all the code again and is classified as a contribution. But > > I assume this is just a derivative work of the previous contribution > > rather than a new contribution? That is we don't need to wait for > > another vote.) > > I disagree -- i think the simplest thing would be for Daniel to submit > the delta rather than another version of the original contribution.
A derivative work of something under the apache license is not automatically under the apache license. Similarly, a derivative work to which multiple people contributed is still a bulk contribution. Our policy currently says "Any software or other contribution that was not created explicitly for Apache Harmony *in* the Apache Harmony project is considered to be a 'Bulk Contribution'. " the emphasis on *in* is there for a reason. What we identify here (among other things) is a mode of operation where various parties do their development work in isolation and then every now and then submit some patches. When I see a sentence like "We've been working on [foo], I've contributed that [here]", to me that makes it clear that what is under discussion is a Bulk Contribution (work by multiple parties contributed by a single party), and the minimum amount of paperwork to me seems to be the bulk contribution checklist (if all the previously sent-in paperwork such as CLAs and grants and ACQs can be considered applicable to the new contribution). The only way to avoid this kind of paperwork is to have all the individuals that work on this stuff interact within harmony directly so that it is unambigous that any identifiable set of work was produced *here*. Put another way: contributors to the ASF are individuals, not companies, when there's doubt, do the paperwork. Now, we could of course start a discussion on whether we should change our policies, but until we do, lets please all follow it very very carefully. Or did I misunderstand something? In that case, can someone help me get un-confused? cheers! LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
