Hi Rui, Unfortunately, donating code to Apache can be really painful. Apache's main goal is to make sure that the source code it releases is the easiest to consume, so we have to scrub all donations, to eliminate the possibility that if some customer builds a mission-critical application based on some Apache code, they won't have to tear it down later when some Apache code is found to be not properly licensed. So when you raised the possibility that some lines of code could be owned by a company, we pretty much have to investigate. There are lots of companies that won't grab stuff from GitHub at all, or spend money and time trying to verify that they can use some Github code in a commercial, for-profit application. Apache wants to spend the energy up front on its releases so folks can just grab Apache source code and not have to think about it.
Apache is also about communities. They want the code in Apache repos to be where the community of developers making changes to the code interact with each other. But Apache also has a rule that they won't just "take" open source from other places even if it is Apache-licensed if there is an activity community where that code lives. So Apache Flex just can't copy your code into our repos without sufficient documentation that all the owners are ok with moving the center of development for that code to Apache. Back in the early Flex days, lots of Adobe Flex developers published code on blogs and elsewhere. Turns out we weren't supposed to do that without going through a process, and code you find on Adobe blogs may have open source licenses, but that is different from permission to donate that code to Apache. Adobe owns code its employees write, and thus Adobe must give permission to relicense or donate. Instead of donating the code, you do have the option of remaining as a third-party. But even then, Apache Flex must consider the licensing history and who the code owners might be. So, we want to do the investigations now so nobody has to worry about your company coming back later to say, "hey, no, we think we own that code and we don't want Apache and others to use it". In signing the ICLA and telling us the code is completely owned by you, I will trust you on it. It is up to you to decide whether to double-check by asking someone at your company. I suppose you could use commit history to figure out if you made commits during work hours, but I'm willing to accept your assertion that your company won't ever lay claim to the code. Other PMC members may want to dig deeper. And if we go with the assertion that you own every line of code, then please don't send in a CCLA, only send in an ICLA. A CCLA will just confuse the secretary recording these documents. Thanks and sorry for the hassle, -Alex On 11/9/16, 3:03 PM, "Rui Cruz" <info.ruic...@gmail.com> wrote: >OMG! The code is on GitHub! I changed the license because is my repo, and >it's my code and someone said it needs to be Apache 2.0! > >I """own""" every line of code.. the license that I've placed there I >don't >even remember why is GPL! (is github default? someone asked me when first >talked on donating) and even if I worked on some lines of code while >inside >the company (how do I know witch lines I've changed?), but that's not a >problem too! I'll send the CCLA and ICLA and I'll place the NOTICE and >full >LICENSE 2.0. > >Damm.. why can't you guys just copy my code (that is already public) >refactor it a bit (because it needs) and then I everyone uses the official >"material skin"? that would work for me too!! > >I'm sure that if you digg sources, you'll probably do it differently (or >by >css or not extending).. and its fine for me, but maybe its better start a >new project with brainstorming and I will haply help! > >Tomorrow I'll send the scanned docs. > >Thank you! > >2016-11-09 22:48 GMT+00:00 jmclean [via Apache Flex Users] < >ml-node+s2333346n14087...@n4.nabble.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> > I thought that the repo was originally licensed under GPL or something >> other than ALv2. >> >> Correct it was GPL. >> >> > Rui can't just relicense it to ALv2 unless he owns every line. >> >> Correct as I said we need something from his company. >> >> If the company is fine with changing the license then who owns what >>lines >> of code is moot as both (potential) owners agree it’s Apache licensed. >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >> >> ------------------------------ >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> below: >> >>http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/Donating-Spark-Material-to >>- >> Apache-Flex-was-Spark-components-with-Material-Design-tp14026p14087.html >> To unsubscribe from Donating Spark-Material to Apache Flex (was "Spark >> components with Material Design"), click here >> >><http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp? >>macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=14026&code=aW5mby5ydWljcnV6QGdtYWlsLmNvbXw >>xNDAyNnw0OTE5NTg4MDE=> >> . >> NAML >> >><http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp? >>macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml >>.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabbl >>e.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble >>%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21n >>abble%3Aemail.naml> >> > > > > >-- >View this message in context: >http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/Donating-Spark-Material-to- >Apache-Flex-was-Spark-components-with-Material-Design-tp14026p14088.html >Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
