Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Craig Russell wrote: , > The CCLA clarifies the status of all Oracle employees with regard to their > contributions to the code.
But that's not the software grant. This is the software grant: http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf Gj On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Craig Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
