Could an alternative to the MD5 hash of a zip file be the (more secure/authoritative) SHA1 hash of a Git repository commit-chain?
On 19 March 2015 at 09:25, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> wrote: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#submit-clas has some details. > > > A good question is: who will sign that Software Grant? (A loose GitHub > organization is not a Legal Entity). > > I think we can simply contribute under the CLAs we already have with > Apache using the IP Clearance procedure (which we can do ourselves > with a lazy consensus) > > > ..or do we still need the Software Grant to the secretary? In which > case, does simply Sergio (and his employer) sign the Software Grant as > he started the code-base and us others have contributed under the > Apache license Section 5 Contributions? > > That is what was suggested for a similar situation on the incubator > list not long ago.. > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201502.mbox/%3CCALhtWkeroEKNTJqEk53Ms46RbH%3Dpt7vfEHCc25JnscLMdtutrw%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ says > > Additional notes > > The software grant requires that "Licensor owns or has sufficient > rights to contribute the software source code...". In the case where > there are multiple entities involved that only together have > sufficient rights (for example in the case of an existing external > project with multiple contributors), there are basically two > possibilities to continue: > > All entities sign the same software grant together and submit one > software grant form. This is preferred but obviously can complicate > the process considerably. > The alternative is that each party sign its own software grant while > everyone references the same contribution (designated by a URL and an > MD5 hash over the ZIP file representing the contribution). It is > recommended that the software grant form is modified in order to have > a line for each party so the completeness of the paperwork can be > verified upon receipt. > > > On 18 March 2015 at 22:05, Peter Ansell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Lewis, >> >> What does a transfer of ownership entail? >> >> I was under the impression that there was an initial (permanent) >> software grant, with CLA's for the rest of the ongoing development. >> That implies to me that Apache does not "own" the code as it would if >> the copyright was assigned to the ASF. >> >> Sorry if that is the wrong impression, these processes confound me >> still in general. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Peter >> >> On 19 March 2015 at 07:17, Lewis John Mcgibbney >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Folks, >>> Please see the issue below for context on what is going on with regards to >>> importing the CommonsRDF codebase to TheASF. >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9244 >>> Does anyone have an update on the transfer of ownership for the codebase >>> over the TheASF? >>> Once this is done we would be good to go ahead and import the codebase but >>> not until. >>> Thanks >>> Lewis >>> >>> -- >>> *Lewis* > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
