I share your conclusio. Nemo plus iuris transferre potest quam ipse habet. Oracle cannot grant us anythong which they don't own.
Apart from that there is a separate question where any ASF project can add MIT based code. And the answer is yes, we can [1]. Of course we have to add it to our NOTICE file and we also have to add the MIT license as MIT requires attribution. So while Oracle cannot grant it to us we can still use it. Probably it's easier to have a list of grant-exclusions and keep it in GIT than removing it (leaving a disfunctional project) and then re-adding it again? LieGrue, strub [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved > Am 03.01.2017 um 14:49 schrieb Jaroslav Tulach <[email protected]>: > > Hello Emilian, > great question. Possibly something for Apache mentors to help us explain. > > On úterý 3. ledna 2017 11:54:37 CET Emilian Bold wrote: >> Why did you remove 2 compatible dependencies which were MIT licensed? > > Originally this puzzled me as well. However it seems logical to me now. > Oracle > cannot donate knockout.js (even if licensed under compatible MIT license) to > Apache as Oracle doesn't own any rights to knockout.js. > >> Downloading the JS from the URL just obfuscates the dependency. > > The dependency is of course still there, but by not having the actual code > under the version control system, Oracle could now say: > > --- begin --- > All the files that are result of > > $ hg clone https://hg.netbeans.org/html4j/ > $ cd html4j > $ hg update -C 929563230c07 > > are being donated to Apache. > --- end --- > > Such simple and exact statement was not possible before. > > It is sort of similar to 3rd party JAR dependencies where the version control > system contains only SHA reference to the binary and the actual binary is > downloaded during the build. > > -jt > > Btw. wouldn't you be so kind to convert the html4j repository to git? > >> În mar., 3 ian. 2017 la 12:57 Jaroslav Tulach <[email protected]> >> >> a scris: >>> Hello NetBeans fans! >>> >>> Here is a few more details on top of Geertjan's report: >>> >>> On pátek 23. prosince 2016 15:27:37 CET Geertjan Wielenga wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We've identified the following repos as being the repos we want to >>>> donate >>>> >>>> to Apache: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> community-ruby (2376 files) >>>> >>>> community-soa (11770 files files) >>>> >>>> community-uml (6365 files) >>>> >>>> community-visualweb (6339 files) >>>> >>>> community-xml (2326 files) >>>> >>>> html4j (280 files) >>>> >>>> jackpot30 (964 files) >>>> >>>> (main)contrib >>>> >>>> (main)misc (5076 files) >>>> >>>> plsql-support (2341 files) >>>> >>>> releases (100548 files) >>>> >>>> releases-l10n (33348 files) >>> >>> If you look at repositories listed at http://hg.netbeans.org you may find >>> >>> "donation_review" branches in some of them. >>> >>>> However, we can't contribute something we haven't reviewed. We can only >>>> >>>> give to Apache what is ours to give. We can't make licensing decisions >>> >>> for >>> >>>> someone else's code. E.g., we can't donate Oracle logos, for example. >>>> And >>>> >>>> there are several other logos too. We can't donate all kinds of things >>>> if >>>> >>>> they're not actually ours to donate. >>> >>> The idea is to cleanup the code and put the fixes into the donation_review >>> >>> branch that should then contain files officially donate-able by Oracle to >>> Apache >>> >>> (insert all the legal warnings describing everything that can go wrong >>> here). >>> >>>> Starting from the smallest repo, i.e., 'html4j', the repos are being >>>> >>>> reviewed. That particular repo took less than a day to review, yes, >>> >>> someone >>> >>>> is going through the repo paintakingly looking at files for licensing >>>> >>>> concerns and anything else that could be odd for whatever reason. And >>> >>> then >>> >>>> the concerns discovered need to be discussed and handled. >>> >>> Good news is that in case of html4j repository I received the review >>> comments >>> >>> and addressed them as well as I could. Today I've merged the fixes into >>> the >>> >>> donation_review branch: https://hg.netbeans.org/html4j/rev/929563230c07 >>> >>> >>> >>> I have good feelings about the review process. The review identified >>> things >>> >>> that really cannot be donated (knockout.js or safari_logo.png files being >>> two >>> >>> examples). I have managed to address these issues and still keep the code >>> >>> buildable and functional. >>> >>>> Yes, this is taking time -- still, once done we'll know for sure that >>>> >>>> things are good and ready. >>> >>> The html4j repository is just a single step, but it seems to indicate that >>> we >>> >>> are moving in the right direction. >>> >>> >>> >>> -jt >>> >>>> Yes, this is taking time -- still, once done we'll know for sure that >>>> >>>> things are good and ready. We're doing something right now that I had >>>> >>>> thought we'd be doing throughout incubation in the Apache Git repo. >>> >>> Instead >>> >>>> of that, we're doing it before getting it into the Apache Git repo. This >>> >>> is >>> >>>> something that Oracle wants and must do, itself, i.e., no one else, >>> >>> outside >>> >>>> Oracle, should be involved in this since it is Oracle that is donating >>> >>> the >>> >>>> code and not anyone else. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to give a time estimate for the above, though I imagine some weeks >>> >>> at >>> >>>> least are involved. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We're moving along and there is progress and the end is clear. In the >>>> end >>>> >>>> this will have been a good process for its thoroughness and for having >>>> >>>> avoided situations with unknown unknowns, since everything will >>> >>> ultimately >>> >>>> come to light as this investigation continues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gj > >
