Le 13/03/2018 à 16:47, Daniel Dekany a écrit :
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).
Right, can't be committed on an official ASF repo, or rather it can't be
released (which is barely the same eventually)
Then it should be easier than I thought, they are still all employees of RedHat? I guess not but the number of people having left RedHat must be less
than 8 and so it could be easier than expected
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,
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
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.
IMO it's worth it if we can get an agreement with RedHat about their employees
and if some have left maybe we will need to contact them ourselves.
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...
On Mar 9, 2018, at 11:03 AM, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
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 :)