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 <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> 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 <emilian.b...@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> 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 <emilian.b...@gmail.com>
> > > 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 <
> > > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to