On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>
>>> And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g.
>>> pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
>>
>> And that returns me to my first qu
On 19.08.2012 13:01, Lennart Regebro wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g. pull
requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue again.
An
The Plone Foundation adopted a policy for this, see
http://plone.org/foundation/materials/foundation-resolutions/patch-policy-052011
As we don't have any terms of service stating so for any of our issue trackers,
we don't get any copyright assignments for reported bugs or proposed patches.
Patc
Lennart Regebro writes:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown
>>> sources (e.g. pull requests) legal code ownership becomes an issue
>>> again.
>>>
>
* Lennart Regebro [2012-08-19 13:01]:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> Legally, both are disallowed unless there's some proof (written
>> statement etc) from the code author that he assigns ownership of the
>> patch or the contents of that pull request to the contribut
Wolfgang Schnerring writes:
> * Lennart Regebro [2012-08-19 13:01]:
>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> As far as I understand it, the legal lynchpin is that using Github
> (strongly) encourages merging code contributions of people that did not
> sign a contributor agre
On Aug 20, 2012, at 8:18 , Wolfgang Schnerring wrote:
> a) Using Github is found to be quite attractive by lots of people.
> b) We need to be diligent in maintaining the chain of custody of code so
> the copyright situation is kept clean.
>
> As far as I understand it, the legal lynchpin is that
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> The Plone Foundation adopted a policy for this, see
> http://plone.org/foundation/materials/foundation-resolutions/patch-policy-052011
>
> As we don't have any terms of service stating so for any of our issue
> trackers, we don't get an
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Maintaining the chain of custody doesn't just consist of selecting pull
> requests or patches coming from somewhere. It also means verifying the
> contributor - be it the one who is creating the patch or pull request or the
> one who is m
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Github: I don't know. I took the liberty of adding you to one of my
> repos as collaborator, but I didn't find any way to change your
> privileges so that you also could add collaborators, so someone else
> have to answer that more closely.
Hi,
I am interested in both legal and practical issues.
Here is a simple and clean solution to handle both:
1- ZF maintains its own github-like infrastructure based on self hosted open
source software. Any tool can be used, as long as this tool has UI for managing
code reviews and merge reques
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, wrote:
> This approach protects from:
> - legal risks posed by github
Such as?
> - instabilities due to ever changing fashion in code hosting (sourceforce
> then google code then bitbucket then github then etc.)
Sure. At the cost of a lot of extra complexity,
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, wrote:
>> This approach protects from:
>> - legal risks posed by github
>
> Such as?
I'll let Jean-Paul elaborate, but I suppose it could be something
along the lines of GitHub suddenly disappearin
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Maintaining the chain of custody doesn't just consist of selecting pull
requests or patches coming from somewhere. It also means verifying the
contributor - be it the one who is creating the patch or pull request or the
one who is merging new code into the repository -
Am 20.08.2012, 11:09 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro :
Such as?
As previously noted: the T&C's in particular the indemnification clause.
Plus, the usual when dealing with an apparently free service provided by a
company beholden to VC's.
Charlie
--
Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Cons
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Leonardo Rochael Almeida
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:28 AM, wrote:
>>> This approach protects from:
>>> - legal risks posed by github
>>
>> Such as?
>
> I'll let Jean-Paul elaborate, bu
On 20.08.2012 12:10, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 20.08.2012, 11:09 Uhr, schrieb Lennart Regebro :
Such as?
As previously noted: the T&C's in particular the indemnification clause.
Plus, the usual when dealing with an apparently free service provided by
a company beholden to VC's.
There are lots o
Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter :
There are lots of very famous os projects hostet on github - which -
without any doubt raises the reputation of github itself.
ah, the common cold defence: everyone has it so it must be good.
https://github.com/popular/starred
i doub
On 20.08.2012 12:27, Robert Niederreiter wrote:
even the linux kernel guys seem to prefer the benefits of github.
ok, this one was obviously a one-timer due to server troubles at
kernel.org. anyway...
--
Robert Niederreiter
Squarewave Computing
Aflingerstraße 19
A-6176 Völs
Tel: +43 699 160
On 08/20/2012 12:39 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter
:
even the linux kernel guys seem to prefer the benefits of github.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux
Yes, promotional materials would have nothing to do with the
commercial nature of the serv
On 20.08.2012 12:39, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter :
There are lots of very famous os projects hostet on github - which -
without any doubt raises the reputation of github itself.
ah, the common cold defence: everyone has it so it must be good.
no
On 20.08.2012 12:49, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 08/20/2012 12:39 PM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter
:
even the linux kernel guys seem to prefer the benefits of github.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux
Yes, promotional materials would have nothing
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:17 , Lennart Regebro wrote:
>>
And since it becomes ever easier to accept code from unknown sources (e.g.
pull requests) legal code ownership
On 20.08.2012 12:39, Charlie Clark wrote:
I raised a specific objection: that the onus is on anyone with a Github
account to demonstrate their code does not violate any patents in the
case of a claim feels like a pretty real threat to me.
i agree. but even here i wonder whats the difference if so
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
...
> Again, as Jens has repeatedly said we should not conflate the separate items
> of toolchain and service provider.
+1
> Zope Foundation has hardware and a proven
> track record in hosting. Is anyone actually criticising this?
FTR, in th
Am 20.08.2012, 12:50 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter :
On 20.08.2012 12:39, Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter
:
There are lots of very famous os projects hostet on github - which -
without any doubt raises the reputation of github itself.
ah, the
Am 20.08.2012, 13:25 Uhr, schrieb Jim Fulton :
FTR, in the case of svn.zope.org, it's ZC hardware and hosting with a
lot of much appreciated help from Jens.
My mistake, I thought that Foundation owned it's own hardware. I must have
misinterpreted something.
We're doing a pretty ok job (if
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Charlie Clark
wrote:
>> https://github.com/popular/starred
>> i doubt that github i willing to get into the doghouse by doing really
>> nasty things - and thus getting into risk of loosing projects.
>
> This is pure speculation, or are you privy to board decisio
Hi,
> We're doing a pretty ok job (if you ignore a near catastrophe) in
> providing what is, by today's standards, a bare-bones service. User
> management is awkward. We lack any automated support for review, and
> a number of other services provides by github and bitbucket.
There are now open
"Charlie Clark" writes:
> Am 20.08.2012, 12:27 Uhr, schrieb Robert Niederreiter :
>
>> https://github.com/popular/starred
>> i doubt that github i willing to get into the doghouse by doing
>> really nasty things - and thus getting into risk of loosing
>> projects.
>
> This is pure speculation,
30 matches
Mail list logo
