Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 2:44:14 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Sunday, March 11, 2018, 5:22:39 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> If RedHat took ownership of the tool then they should be able to
>>> take care of changing the license and sending an SGA to the ASF.
>>
>> In the case of FreeMarker Online *we* have changed the headers after
>> the PR from Kenshoo (the contributor) was merged. But in the case of
>> FreeMarker IDE it's much less obvious (to me at least) if they own the
>> thing fully ("Red Hat Middleware, LLC, and individual contributors"),
>> so better push that step on them? Is that what you mean?
> I'm not a lawyer, but whether Red Hat owns fully or partially, if they
> don't agree, I don't think we can simply move it to ASF.

They had no objection. But they can't tell if they are willing to do
the transfer until we tell them what exactly that involves. The less
work it is for them, the more likely it is that they will be nice and
do the thing, instead of just saying "well, fork it, the license
allows that" (which is correct, only then it can't be done at the ASF,
or so I assume so at least).

>>> However, nothing in your email indicates that RedHat has any
>>> interest in donating the tool to the ASF.
>>
>> Nick Boldt was positive about the idea, and he has CC-ed to some
>> others as well (some are legal guys I presume), and also it was on
>> jbosstools-dev (a public list), and so far there was no negative
>> reactions, except that they don't want much work with this. So, if
>> this is to progress anywhere, I believe first we have to tell them
>> what exactly they had to do, and then they can make up their minds.
>> Actually, they are waiting for me to tell if ASF wants this at all,
>> and how.
> Do you mean the 'individual contributors' by them?

I mean the guys working at RedHat / JBoss Tools.

> I'm afraid that ASF cannot give a good direction to them as the
> 'owner's should decide what to do themselves first. We can just say
> we're willing to host the project if the 'owner's willing to do
> donate though.

It's our turn. I'm really just waiting to hear if the other PPMC
members think that this should be attempted (like, if we want that
code at all), then I will ask ASF Legal.

> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
>>
>>> Short of that your only real option is to fork it to GitHub. You
>>> would have to leave the existing code as LGPL but anything new you
>>> add could use any license you want.
>>
>> That will happen if it can't come here.
>>
>>> Another option would be to look at the functionality of the tool and
>>> create something similar without using any of the code. Of course,
>>> that is a lot more work.
>>
>> Yeah, but I'm afraid that's unlikely to happen... Or, anyone wants to
>> write nice fresh and modern Eclipse plugin, certainly based on the
>> Eclipse LSP and TextMate syntax highlight plugins? If someone says
>> that he will reach a release within a few months, then users can just
>> survive on my personal fork until that...
>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>> On Mar 9, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux 
>>>> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 09/03/2018 à 16:59, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
>>>>> I was hasty here... as some people use multiple e-mail addresses, it's
>>>>> actually "only" 19 contributors, out of which 11 is/was at RedHat.
>>>> So it's only 8 persons to reach since RedHat seems OK. That sounds doable 
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Jacques
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany
>>
>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany

Reply via email to