Hi *, Begin forwarded message:
From: Henri Yandell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: August 23, 2012 9:18:24 AM GMT+02:00 To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Amber CLA status [Was: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence] Reply-To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sounds like you should sign off on the first item in the Copyright section of http://incubator.apache.org/projects/amber.html as "n/a". can anyone update this page? Regards Antonio No code was relicensed to the ASF when Amber was created. Instead it was a fork of Uni of Newcastle code and that copyright remains on the code. Hen On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Henri, thanks for taking care of this. IANAL but technically yes I think that the OAuth 2.0 part of Amber can be considered as a fork. Before to perform the first release we followed what has been suggested in LEGAL-134. Did we miss something? Should we do something more or we can assume this legal issue is over? Thanks and regards Antonio On Aug 12, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: Hi Antonio, This is about making sure that all software being contributed to Apache is covered by CLAs (continuous contribution) or the software license grant (single contribution). Legally it would also be fine to fork software under a Category A license, though it's frowned upon (ie: the status checkbox doesn't offer it as an option). By the look of LEGAL-134, it sounds like Amber started as a fork of University of Newcastle code? Hen On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Henri, Amber wise we tracked this in [0]. Now I am not sure if we can also tick the box. Regards Antonio [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-134 On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item: 2009-02-09 kato 2009-02-13 stonehenge 2009-05-13 socialsite 2010-05-19 amber 2010-09-05 nuvem 2010-11-12 kitty 2010-11-24 stanbol 2011-06-13 openofficeorg Said checklist item is: "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. " How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these rights? Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice. Note that this list comes from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/projects Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
