We, as individuals, own the rights to the code on GH.
Our current iCLAs cover contributions to Apache so don't automatically
cover the GH-commons-rdf code unless we each explicitly say that we are
transferring the code to Apache.
The cleanest is SG's from all contributors and the Incubator IP
clearance process.
If the mentors deem it acceptable, then I/personally am happy with
explicit declarations from the 5 [*] contributors so far here in email
to say that we, as Apache committers, each contribute the code on GH and
hence our individual iCLAs can be applied.
I'll leave the decision to the mentors (sorry - /me trying to not to be
on both sides of the fence at once in some quantum uncertainty field).
Andy
https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/graphs/contributors
On 18/03/15 22:25, Stian Soiland-Reyes 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*
