Salut a tout le monde, didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo codebase was accepted? IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct me if I am wrong!
As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a SoftwareGrant, so please explain me why we should risk to lost the oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :( NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue? TIA all, have a nice day, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
