On 9 September 2014 14:46, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > There have been companies who have submitted bodies of code to Apache,
And those companies usually have a CLA from their contributors or else all the contributors are employees and the code is thus owned by the company > and there have been projects consisting of individuals submitting bodies > of code. The question is whether those amorphous collections of individuals has CLAs to the group and whether there was a need to relicense. For the code that is Apache License, version 2.0, then technically we don't need to do anything at all - other than retain copyright headers For the code that is not Apache Licensed, we will probably have more fun. > We're not doing anything new. Lets do the simplest thing that could possibly work: * Identify those bits where we have all the committers and get the committers to respond to a mail on the dev list saying "ok to push my contribs and relicense under Apache License v2 as necessary" Lets get those ones in and done. That will reduce the scope of work to do. Next we then need to reach out to any contributers that we do no have... see if they are willing to do the same thing... only if we don't have that do we need to start dealing with more complex processes... but by that time we will know exactly what the gap is > The Apache Incubator can be used for this case and there are likely people > there who have dealt with this case and have seen it. There will also be > people from the legal groups on the incubator mailings lists and we can > just do what the last project did. I don't think we're unique here. > > On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I don't think we should attempt to make up new procedures here. Just use > >> the standard Apache Incubation process if you're going to move a body of > >> code. I don't think it will take long and then all the bases are covered > >> and everyone else there can inspect the procedure. > >> > > > > It does not apply, because there is no single owner to sign off on it. So > > one way or the other, we are adapting. At this point, I'd strongly advise > > seeking input from VP, Legal. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Sep 9, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Connolly < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On 9 September 2014 14:01, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> When every contributors so by him/herself, sure. "submitted by YOU". > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Same meaning if Hervé pushed the repo in here and we've all agreed. > >>> > >>> > >>> The key bit is "we've all agreed" where the "we" is the Plexus > >> contributors > >>> and the "agreed" is some documentation that the contributors agreed, > >> which > >>> is what the mail would be > >>> > >>> > >>>> Again, this is how the incubation process works to move a body of code > >> to > >>>> Apache. Everyone doesn't re-commit their code to satisfy the literal > >> "YOU" > >>>> in the CLA. Whatever the process is for incubation insofar as legal > >>>> requirements we should meet. The last time I was involved with this > >> these > >>>> were CLAs applied to the body of code migrated from a foreign > >> repository to > >>>> Apache. > >>>> > >>>>> Stefan > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jason > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> Jason van Zyl > >>>> Founder, Apache Maven > >>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >>>> http://twitter.com/takari_io > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. > >>>> > >>>> -- Benjamin Franklin > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> Jason van Zyl > >> Founder, Apache Maven > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >> http://twitter.com/takari_io > >> --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> believe nothing, no matter where you read it, > >> or who has said it, > >> not even if i have said it, > >> unless it agrees with your own reason > >> and your own common sense. > >> > >> -- Buddha > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > http://twitter.com/takari_io > --------------------------------------------------------- > > People develop abstractions by generalizing from concrete examples. > Every attempt to determine the correct abstraction on paper without > actually developing a running system is doomed to failure. No one > is that smart. A framework is a resuable design, so you develop it by > looking at the things it is supposed to be a design of. The more examples > you look at, the more general your framework will be. > > -- Ralph Johnson & Don Roberts, Patterns for Evolving Frameworks > > > > > > > > > >
