On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Christian Lohmaier <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi *, > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: >> If Regina were the LO committer or the creator of the patches that were >> committed, > > She is. > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-06-06 17:31:56 > (GMT) > committer Fridrich Štrba <[email protected]> 2011-06-06 > 17:31:56 (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:34:43 > (GMT) > committer Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:34:43 > (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:33:44 > (GMT) > committer Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:43:20 > (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:34:06 > (GMT) > committer Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> 2011-06-23 15:34:06 > (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-09-09 13:02:34 > (GMT) > committer Kohei Yoshida <[email protected]> 2011-09-20 16:14:13 > (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-10-27 18:31:52 > (GMT) > committer Andras Timar <[email protected]> 2011-10-28 08:24:01 (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-09-02 23:20:54 > (GMT) > committer Thorsten Behrens <[email protected]> 2011-09-02 23:26:09 > (GMT) > > author Regina Henschel <[email protected]> 2011-09-28 13:26:36 > (GMT) > committer Michael Meeks <[email protected]> 2011-09-30 11:13:30 > (GMT) > > See the line that begins with "author"? If you want, replace that with > "creator" to fit your language. The author is the one who wrote the > code. The committer is the person who added it to the repository. > > And if you (more Rob) here doesn't understand a statement like "I > wrote this and that, here are the commits, will you please integrate > them" from a person who has signed the ICLA as a contribution, then > you're acting weird... >
A contribution in general needs to address three things: 1) Who is making the contribution 2) What are the contributing 3) What is the license There is more than one way to make a contribution. The ICLA defines one way, Let's call that an ICLA-contribution. It covers contributions made in specific ways by those who have signed the ICLA. But it is limited to contributions made to Apache servers, e.g., SVN. issue trackers, mailing lists, etc. It does not cover contributions made on other non-Apache servers. That doesn't mean that such contributions are forbidden. It just means that such contributions are not under the terms of the ICLA. In other words, if a person makes a contribution in a way that is outside of the ICLA definition of a "contribution" than it is irrelevant that they have signed the ICLA. It is out of scope of the ICLA. We've seen other kinds of contributions as well. For example, when Oracle granted the base OpenOffice code, this was done via an SGA. They did not attach the entire repository to a BZ issue or post it to the mailing list. They did not even check it into SVN or put it on any Apache server. But they did identify the specific files they were granting us, and they were specific on what the license was -- Apache 2.0. We then went to an external, non-Apache server (the legacy OOo Hg server) and retrieved these files ourselves. So we're not limited to ICLA-covered contributions. But we still need to be clear about the three questions: Who is contributing?, What code?, What license? If you've signed the ICLA and then contribute the patch to an Apache server, then these questions are already answered. If you submit an SGA they also already answered. If you want to do something else, then it might be perfectly acceptable, but still need those three questions explicitly addressed. -Rob > ciao > Christian
