Hi Paul, is not my personal issue, my initial codebase indeed is under the ASF CLA, the issue comes when Leelo joined Amber, bringing OAuth2.0 - and related copyrights, that Leelo guys are still figuring out with their OSS advisor at University...
legal@ anyway is the final solution, no way otherwise :) All the best, have a nice day! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Paul Lindner <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm a little confused here. > > For the initial code drop you should have a signed CLA from the original > company that assigns copyright to ASF. Is that not the case? Is there > code that was imported improperly? > > NOTICE file is for giving notice that the software contains licensed > software from elsewhere. In this case you can use the specified code > intact. Just add RAT rules to skip that. For example in Apache Shindig we > had a copy of phpunit and Zend in our source tree that had compatible > licenses, we put the appropriate NOTICE and rat rules in place. > > Please do consult with legal-discuss to figure out the right way to move > forward with this. > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Simone Tripodi > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi David!!! >> >> sure, just have a look, for example, at the MD5Generator[1] class, or >> any of the java class conatined in aouth2-* - RAT (in the release >> profiles) complains about non-conformity. >> >> +1 to move Copyright statements in the NOTICE, sounds more than reasonable. >> >> Thanks for your help, have a nice day! >> -Simo >> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/HP7 >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> > > > > -- > Paul Lindner -- [email protected] -- profiles.google.com/pmlindner
