Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto: > Hi Raymond > > On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote: > >> Hi, Antonio. >> >> Thank you for driving the efforts. >> >> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the >> source was from Univ. of Newcastle? > > > I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University > of Newcastle. > Please correct me if I am wrong.
yes, that's correct. Tommaso > > Regards > > Antonio > > >> >> Raymond >> >> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >> >>> Hi *, >>> >>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this >>> IP clearance issue. >>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code >>> to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution >>> might be "lost" due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??). >>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in >>> order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have >>> any other proposal): >>> >>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related >>> issue. >>> >>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my >>> proposal with an example. >>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create >>> a new module e.g. oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module >>> oauth2-resourceserver, oauth2-common we should be "safe". >>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this >>> is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac . >>> >>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been >>> taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst" >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Antonio >>> >>> >>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41 >>> >>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi *, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? I am wincing as I say it, >>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have to >>>>> take some drastic action. >>>> >>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting >>>> to reconsider what Pid has said. >>>> >>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Antonio >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> p >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Tommaso >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi * >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Amber >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last report? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff from >>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka (mail sent >>>>>>> to general@)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Antonio >>>> >>> >> >
