Hi Simone,
On Mar 13, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: > 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 :( as said IANAL and I am a bit lost as well :S. I am just a bit concern since this IP clearance issue comes out every time we try to talk about next release plan or graduation plan. So mine is just an attempt to better understand the situation and try to move bit forward :) Should I have said something incorrect legally/process wise I do apologize :) Regards Antonio > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
