There is already a definitive answer: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-156>
But I agree with you, Spark’s process is a good one for Quickstep to adopt. Julian > On May 31, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: >> Roman, >> >> Requiring the contributor to log a JIRA makes a lot of sense, and a lot of >> projects do that. >> But from an IP hygiene standpoint, my understanding is that it is sufficient >> that the contributor >> has created a github pull request to a project under >> https://github.com/apache. Just like >> attaching a patch to an Apache JIRA, that demonstrates intent to contribute. >> Is my understanding correct? > > Let me put it this way: I don't think a pure GH workflow will be OK by ASF: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-249 > > But! Once we consider GH notifications being pushed to our mailing > lists it becomes > a gray area in my view. One way to resolve it is to push the issue via > ASF's VP of Legal > for an authoritative answer (see one of my last comments on the above JIRA). > > What I'm suggesting here is, in a way, a cop out, but a productive one ;-) > > IOW, if what Spark folks have come up with jives well with Quickstep community > lets just adopt that approach and move on without being a poster child > community > to go resolve it with ASF's VP of Legal. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > P.S. Sorry I couldn't give you a 100% iron clad answer.
