On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:47 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Jakob Homan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Right, which is what I was working on. This thread is to find out if, >> given what that original grantor considers this new repo part of the >> original grant, we need to go through with the extra work of the IP >> Clearance. >> >> > > > Multiple issues here. The repo in question wasn't called out in the > proposal that was voted on when Samza was accepted as a podling. > Though for the record, neither was the initial repo. Regardless, that > was almost a year ago. IMO IP Clearance is the process that covers > bringing in the additional IP at this time. You'll need to follow that > process, and CCLA might give you some of the paperwork you need in the > process, but it doesn't obviate the need for going through the IP > Clearance process. > > My reading of things is that as part of that IP Clearance you would > need one of: > * a valid CCLA with the contribution described in Schedule B (We > really don't have an idea of what, if anything was in Schedule B)
I don't think there is any confidentiality of the following information. The original CCLA from LinkedIn has this: <verbatim>Schedule B Samza: a system for processing stream data from publish-subscribe systems such as Apache Kafka. The developer writes a stream processing task, and executes it as a Samza job. Samza then routes messages between stream processing tasks and the publish-subscribe systems that the messages are addressed to. </verbatim> LinkedIn's legal department comments are sufficient for me to clear this donation: LI counsel on open source matters: "Hello-samza is ancillary to Samza and thus fits within a broadly interpreted Exhibit B to the original Samza CCLA. In other words, it's already covered, with no legal need for a new CCLA. Also worth noting that we're the donor of both Samza and hello-samza, so a key problem that would be resolved by having the separate, new CCLA (i.e. substantial donation of code by a different company) is actually a problem we do not have." Craig > * A valid CCLA in conjunction with ICLAs along with attestation that > it's a work held by $dayjob and you are transferring it to the ASF. > * A valid SGA for the IP > > --David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Craig L Russell Secretary, Apache Software Foundation [email protected] http://db.apache.org/jdo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
