Hi Geert, > On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Geertjan Wielenga > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Here's what it looks like: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
Please do not use this license. Use the CCLA instead. The CCLA clarifies the status of all Oracle employees with regard to their contributions to the code. http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt Thanks, Craig > > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation [email protected] http://db.apache.org/jdo
