Brilliant! Thanks for finding that thread, Mike. On Oct 15, 2013 3:50 PM, "Mike Drob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This discussion [1] from legal-discuss seems to be the most recent word > regarding github pull requests, and looks like they are fair game. > > [1]: http://markmail.org/thread/3gvsg4qgc2khve27 > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > It is my understanding that: > > > > > > The status quo hasn't changed just because we've moved to git. > > > Committers are still required to perform their due diligence to ensure > > > that any patch applied has the proper assignment to the ASF. To be > > > clear, the relevant issue is that patches applied via a pull request > > > make it easier for committers to overlook that step (because git makes > > > it so easy!), whereas patches attached to a JIRA are a little more > > > clear, because by submitting code to JIRA on ASF's infrastructure, one > > > can assume (unless otherwise stated) that it is owned by the ASF > > > (although, technically, JIRA doesn't have any Terms of Service stating > > > this when you sign up for an account... I just checked). > > > > > > > The licensing of a "Contribution" is explicitly discussed in the Apache > > License. So the licensing isn't assumed because it's ASF JIRA, it's > > assumed because our code is licensed under the Apache License, and any > > "Contribution" to it is therefore also Apache licensed. > > > > Judging by how other projects are handling this, I am left to conclude > that > > a "Contribution" must consist of a patch itself, and not a reference to a > > patch that exists outside of our infrastructure. I have not yet found > > explicit guidance about this. > > > > > > > > > > We should have something on our page page that describes a procedure > > > for explicitly indicating the patch associated with a pull request is > > > being assigned to the ASF. Perhaps we should just say, "pull requests > > > are fine, but indicate the assignment explicitly on the ticket > > > itself". > > > > > > -- > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I don't recall a discussion happening about granting license to the > ASF > > > > when the repo moved to git. Looking at the git workflow guide[1], I > > don't > > > > see any mention of licensing. > > > > > > > > In other projects (e.g. Avro[2] and Hive[3]) assigning license to the > > ASF > > > > is an important part of submitting a contribution. In those projects, > > > > people are instructed to attach their patches to an open jira so that > > > > license can be granted; pull requests from github generally aren't > > > allowed. > > > > > > > > Do we have a stance as a project on this? I think those two projects > > > > basically say that the grant is required by the Apache License > itself. > > > Are > > > > there ASF rules that can provide guidance on this? > > > > > > > > -Sean > > > > > > > > [1]: http://accumulo.apache.org/git.html > > > > [2]: > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AVRO/How+To+Contribute#HowToContribute-Contributingyourwork > > > > [3]: > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/Hive/HowToContribute#HowToContribute-Contributingyourwork > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sean > > > > > >
