That might be over-simplifying the issue. We've taken the concurrency code without a submission - the code was asserted to be public domain. What we're discussing isn't public domain, but, in theory, is a compatible license.
I believe the intent of the wiki article is to get new committers to think about what they're doing, which seems to be working. -Nathan On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:30 AM, Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> wrote: > Nathan, Jack, > > We have the following text at [1]. > >> Always remember that you can never commit code that comes from someone else, >> even a co-worker. All code from someone else must be submitted by the >> copyright holder (either the author or author's employer, depending) as a >> JIRA, and then follow up with the required ACQs and BCC. > > Any committer who obey this statement cannot technically commit any > code from Google because > * it is not in JIRA; > * we don't have required ACQ and BCC. > > Well, we might think of revising the statement. > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/NewCommitter > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Alexei Fedotov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> I have studied Google CLG ("Contributor License Grant") documents >> provided by Dan. >> >> <http://source.android.com/license/individual-contributor-license---android-open-source-project> >> <http://source.android.com/license/corporate-contributor-license---android-open-source-project> >> >> It seems that the "Project leads and [...] recipients of software >> distributed by the Project Leads [..] get the patent license". How can >> we prove that Apache is the recipient of software distributed by the >> Project Leads? >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Nathan Beyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not talking about a bulk contribution from Google folks. I'm >>> talking about Harmony committers and contributors looking at the >>> Android source and maybe taking a few lines here or there. Assuming >>> it's licensed as ASLv2 and the provenance is able to be determined >>> (likely Harmony > Android, then augmented under ASLv2), shouldn't it >>> be acceptable? IANAL, so I'm posing the scenario. >>> >>> -Nathan >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hello folks, >>> > General Apache guidelines do not require much from a committer [1] except >>> > from preserving the legal trail. Here in Harmony we invented more complex >>> > legal stuff such as ACQ and BCC [2]. The only way to accept contribution >>> > from Google is to get filled BCC and a set of ACQs from googlengineers. >>> > The >>> > good news are that the anti-plagiarism scan is optional, so the form >>> > requires nothing except pure beauracy. >>> > >>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#applying-patches >>> > [2] http://harmony.apache.org/bulk_contribution_checklist.html >>> > >>> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Aleksey Shipilev < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi, Dan, Nathan! >>> >> >>> >> It's nice to hear, Dan! I'll check out the cupcake branch and report >>> >> back. >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Nathan Beyer <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Assuming this is all ASLv2 code, there shouldn't be anything that >>> >> > prevents Harmony committers [skip] >>> >> And by committer you mean anyone who has ACQ and ICLA signed? >>> >> >>> >> I have doubts here... Should the patch issuer certify the origin of >>> >> the patch? How can we be sure that (sorry, guys! ;) ) code coming from >>> >> Android would not break the Harmony clean-room policy? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Aleksey. >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > С уважением, >>> > Алексей Федотов, >>> > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс» >>> > >> >> >> >> -- >> С уважением, >> Алексей Федотов, >> ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс» >> > > > > -- > С уважением, > Алексей Федотов, > ЗАО «Телеком Экспресс» >
