Interesting, I didn't know the grant is online. I guess that since the license is non-exclusive it's the equivalent of Oracle triple-licensing NetBeans 8.2 under the Apache License too.
--emi On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < [email protected]> wrote: > Here's what it looks like: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf > > It's in the process of being signed right now, it's being worked on right > now, might take a week or so the way it looks now. > > The question remains -- and can someone answer it: once the grant has been > signed and handed over to Apache, what happens if for some reason the > process fails, must Apache then sign a document to grant the code back to > Oracle? > > Gj > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Emilian Bold <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I didn't mean just an empty git repo, I meant the canonical repository > from > > which daily builds and releases are made. > > > > I believe with this proposal Oracle has agreed to the following: > > > > 1. Changing the project license to the Apache license > > 2. Contributing further changes under the Apache license > > 3. Following the Apache governance model and > > 3. Granting code ownership to the Apache Software Foundation. > > > > I don't know how a software grant document looks like but I assume there > > are articles about 'unwinding'. Oracle legal should talk to Apache legal > > and clear this out. > > > > It seems to me though that without the code grant incubation hasn't > really > > started. I mean, incubation is not about due diligence or legal > discovery. > > > > Still, there is nothing stopping Oracle from following 1, 2 and 3. They > > could change the license to the Apache license this very week. > > > > > > > > --emi > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The point is this -- during incubation, we're going to be working on > > > establishing whether Apache NetBeans can exist or not, from many > > different > > > points of view. And, even though we don't believe the process will > fail, > > it > > > would be a problem if Oracle has granted the code to Apache only to > find > > > that for some reason Apache NetBeans will not be able to leave the > > > incubator. Let's say, for example, there's a licensing problem that > > cannot > > > be fixed. If the software has already been granted, it would then need > to > > > be 'ungranted' at that stage. That's my concern and why I think the > code > > > should only be granted formally, i.e., via the formal SGA document, > when > > we > > > know for sure that incubation will succeed. > > > > > > That means that we can work on setting up the Git repo immediately and, > > > once we know what we want to move there, we move the source code there. > > > Then we start the process of 'scrubbing the code', i.e., checking its > > > licenses and noting any problems and seeking their solutions. Not sure > > how > > > long this will take, but maybe not too long, a month or so, just a > > > guesstimate. Once we have worked through the licensing, and we know for > > > sure incubation will succeed, we can get the SGA, if we know for sure > > there > > > will be no blockers. We did a preliminary investigation of this prior > to > > > putting the proposal together, but at this point we'll have done a > > thorough > > > analysis. > > > > > > Then, once we have the SGA, those who have signed the ICLAs can begin > > > working on committing code agreed upon by the project in terms of a > > > commonly drawn up roadmap. So, it's not a question of waiting until > next > > > year sometime to start committing, just a question of waiting until we > > know > > > for 100% sure that the process will not have to be unwound before > > actually > > > having the code granted from Oracle. > > > > > > Does the above make sense? > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Emilian Bold <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Migrating the repository over to git and the code grant should happen > > in > > > > 2016. > > > > > > > > We have some momentum here but if I have to wait until Summer 2017 to > > > > commit using my @apache ID I signed the iCLA 6 months too soon. > > > > > > > > Also, it's a premature optimization to change too much the code > > > repository. > > > > It seems like a juicy engineering task to split it up, filter it, > > > whatever. > > > > But it is pointless. > > > > > > > > What's essential first is for work to be possible and to start on the > > git > > > > repo. We could have another goal during the incubation or even after > > > > incubation to split the repository. > > > > > > > > I don't think the unwinding should be your main concern. Code changes > > > will > > > > have to be done regardless of who owns the IP. > > > > > > > > As an alternative to this Oracle concern, you could require > > contributors > > > to > > > > have both an iCLA and an OCA, although perhaps the Apache iCLA might > be > > > > sufficient. Apache Legal might intervene and explain things here... > > > > > > > > An incubating project must do a major release during incubation. I > > > believe > > > > that release will have be the Java 9 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --emi > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > An overview of the sequence as far as I understand it. Consider it > a > > > > basic > > > > > starting point for discussion. > > > > > > > > > > Let's start by assuming we want there to be a NetBeans 9 to be > > released > > > > out > > > > > of Apache, and as a top level project, i.e., outside the incubator, > > in > > > > line > > > > > with the release of Java 9. > > > > > > > > > > That puts us in the middle of next year somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > The most important aspect that needs to be worked through before > then > > > is > > > > > the IP, license hygiene, etc. Before we get to the point where > we're > > > > > working on that, we need to actually have one or more Mercurial > repos > > > > that > > > > > we know we want to move. Right now, the NetBeans 9 branch is being > > > moved > > > > > into trunk, once that's done we need to consider whether we should > > take > > > > the > > > > > NetBeans trunk as our starting point -- and determine other brances > > > we'll > > > > > need. > > > > > > > > > > We'll then need to work through the IP issues, i.e., work through > the > > > > > incompatible licenses and work out solutions for those. Some > features > > > > might > > > > > be dropped, others can be installed via plugins, either separately > or > > > > > during installation. > > > > > > > > > > At the point where we've worked through those licensing issues and > > are > > > > at a > > > > > stage where we either have temporary exceptions for truly > problematic > > > > > areas, while knowing what the ultimate solutions for those will be, > > or > > > we > > > > > have solved everything, we'll be at the point where Oracle's SGA > > > > (software > > > > > grant agreement) can be worked on. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, based on the above, the SGA would be executed as > one > > of > > > > the > > > > > LAST steps of the incubation period. After all, if we do uncover > > > > > insurmountable issues during the incubation period, in particular > in > > > > > relation to licensing, having executed such a grant too early would > > > lead > > > > to > > > > > a very difficult unwinding of the process. > > > > > > > > > > In parallel to the licensing process described above, since we're > > > > confident > > > > > that in one way or another things will work out favorably, we could > > > > decide > > > > > to move the tutorials and other content from netbeans.org to the > > > website > > > > > structure, whatever that will be, at Apache, including setting up a > > > Wiki > > > > > structure in our new Confluence environment. > > > > > > > > > > Comments to the above -- bring 'em on! > > > > > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
