On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:36 AM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:52 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being
> > > relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed.
> > Well, it is needed, even where that devolves to "has all SGA paperwork
> > for this incoming contribution and corresponding ICLAs been received
> > and acknowledged?"
> > > In addition, like any other podling coming in, work may be needed
> > > to generate a valid release from the donation. It may not just work.
> > That is independent of the IP Clearance. It's the same issue as any
> > brand new work created here by committers with ICLAs. Nowhere
> > does the ASF enforce 'code quality' or similar metrics. If it doesn't
> > build, it's open source, so just reassemble all the pieces.
> This may be showing some of the issues with the template; the terms are
> confusing and/or incorrect.
> For example, looking at it more deeply, the template contains three
> 1) Identify the codebase. Looking at that term, I would think it's a
> natural first step that involves identifying which code is going to be
> imported into the ASF repository. Instead it's talking about trademarks.
> 2) Copyright. As a term that's simple, but too simple given we have no
> copyright-only paperwork.
> 2i). The section then goes on to suggest that rights are transferred to the
> ASF (very misleading), and says "It is only necessary to transfer rights
> for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.",
> which is gobbledegook. The words package, core and new code produced by the
> project are all undefined and vague.
> 2ii) A second section checks that the files have been updated to reflect
> the 'new ASF copyright'; which is also inaccurate and misleading.
> 3) Verify distribution rights. Sounds interesting.
> 3i) The first section is to check all active committers have a signed CLA
> on record. Fair enough. Perhaps a better fit for section 2; if I had a
> belief that section 2 should stay :)
> 3ii) A reminder about the possibility of CCLAs with average wording (for
> example, it doesn't say who may require this). This probably speaks to
> inadequate documentation elsewhere (on the CLA page?) and is not something
> we should have as an explicit check.
> 3iii) On to one of the ones that started the thread; a compatibility check
> for any non-Apache licensed content within the project.
> 3iv) And the other; basically the same compatibility check with a
> limited/similar but not the same approach.
> The paragraph that comes after does a fair, though hand-wavy job, or
> summarizing the above:
> "Generally, the result of checking off these items will be a Software
> Grant, CLA, and Corporate CLA for ASF licensed code, which must have no
> dependencies upon items whose licenses that are incompatible with the
> Apache License."
> Also noting that item 3 in the process says that a software grant is
> required (bad name imo to use the word 'grant', we really need to fix
> that). Which then talks about 'the traditional License Agreement', which is
> very vague, or a CCLA Schedule B, which given we don't require that
> committers have CCLAs signed is probably not something we should propose as
> an equal.
> Basically this line, and therefore the entire page, assumes that an
> incubator project is a code donation from a corporation.
> I was surprised to see nothing here on the process for who to get ICLAs
> signed by. Only those becoming committers, or any previous contributors
> (and how to determine which contributors). It also should, as a page,
> consider whether having the code previously under Apache 2.0, or a category
> A license, implies a different process.
> I saw you were working on policy cleanup John - could I take a stab at a
> rewrite of this, or is it a) got a lot of historical debate I've missed
> that I should learn about or b) something you're already working on?
Go for it. IP Clearance is way down on my list because:
- Its not usual for a podling to receive a subsequent donation.
- I hate that the IPMC is responsible for all TLPs IP Clearance.