Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> >b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?
>
> In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
> community and continue to contribute.  It has to be recorded by the
> secretary and reads like legal-ese   I am trying for a hopefully quicker
> and easier informal adoption. I really don't expect the past contributors
> to join this new family (i.e. work on this code at the ASF).  The ones who
> want to truly join will have to sign an ICLA and be voted in as a
> committer.


Yes, it does read like legalese, but no it doesn't bind anybody to be part
of the ASF or to continue to contribute.

What it does do (and all it does) is to say that the contributor had the
right to make the contributions they made.  The point of recording these
with the secretary is so that we have a solid record of the agreement of
contributors. Without recording and without a valid legal agreement, there
isn't much point in asking.

Jim's suggestion to ask for clarification on legal-discuss is a good one.

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

OK, next draft below.  Some comments first:

On 11/29/15, 6:25 AM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:

>Alex,
>
>Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:
>
>a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.
>
>b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?

In my mind, the ICLA represents your formal pledge to be part of an ASF
community and continue to contribute.  It has to be recorded by the
secretary and reads like legal-ese   I am trying for a hopefully quicker
and easier informal adoption. I really don't expect the past contributors
to join this new family (i.e. work on this code at the ASF).  The ones who
want to truly join will have to sign an ICLA and be voted in as a
committer.

>
>c) is there a need to mention disbanding the original community?  Could
>that be framed more positively as "We would love to have you come be part
>of the Apache Flex if you are interested in making further contributions".

Ok, took out the disbanded part in #4 and added the above sentence to #5.

Thanks,
-Alex

 Draft 2 -

[Friendly intro]

A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
development of the XXX code.  Normally, this is called a "donation" and
requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
licensed under Apache License 2.0, your contributions may be donated to
the ASF by replying to this email to affirm that:

1) You agree that the code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
2) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
copyright of the code you wrote.  You are only granting  a license to not
only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
3) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
enough contributors to this code base, the "donation" may be abandoned.
4) You understand that if this "donation" is completed, future downloads
should come from, and changes applied to, the code base in an
ASF-controlled code management and distribution system, and discussion
about the code base should happen on Apache Flex mailing lists.
5) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
wish to have continued involvement in changes to this code base, we can
discuss separately the steps to become a Committer.  We would love to have
you come be part of Apache Flex if you are interested in making further
contributions.

Thanks,
Alex Harui, for the
Apache Flex PMC.
- End Draft 2 -

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
> are placing it under control of an existing PMC.

Which, in effect, creates a new PMC around those code bases :)

>   Plus, there is
> effectively no community left.  Nobody has made a change to these projects
> in 4 years.  A major contributor from each project has indicated their
> desire to have our PMC take control, but they are unable to hunt down
> every past contributor and get their permission, so the question really is
> about whether the ASF would permit an existing PMC to take over
> change-control for a code base when we don't have permission for every
> line of code.  Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
> answer.  If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks"
> as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.
> 
> Also can I double-check on your statement of "include, bundle or fork a
> codebase for our usage within a project"?  I assume that "usage" here
> means "placing into the repos for modification" vs straight-up bundling
> where we download some upstream dependency as-is.  I wasn't aware we were
> supposed to ask for as-is bundling.

This is a topic for legal-discuss. I am speaking here as
a member of the Incubator PMC and not as VP Legal or anything
else. Please don't assume.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Alex,

Here are a couple of comments, mostly kind of independent:

a) this is a good start. Very sound directionally.

b) are you just re-inventing the ICLA?

c) is there a need to mention disbanding the original community?  Could
that be framed more positively as "We would love to have you come be part
of the Apache Flex if you are interested in making further contributions".

d) more contributions are fine and can be handled roughly the same way. You
will definitely get more experienced and efficient at it

e) it is normal for communities to roll over all of the committers. If
nothing else, a long-lasting community will out-live all the initial
contributors (not that I am suggestion or hoping that is what happened with
Flex, just pointing out it is inevitable). In many ways, if you can have an
active community with all new contributors without a full reboot, I think
that is a sign of a very strong community.


On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

>
>
> On 11/28/15, 6:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:
> >>
> >>>Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all
> >contributors isn't a common case, and there are both legal and social
> >risks.
> >I don't think we need a general solution for that problem, other than
> >"Don't
> >do this without consulting the Board first."
>
> I can live having to bother the Board for each code base, but just so you
> know, I may not be done after these two.  The fact is that there are lots
> of little Flex-related libraries getting dusty on the shelves of
> googlecode/github.  It seems like Flex is going to have to go through an
> almost complete blood transfusion: we entered with a very large list of
> initial committers and I believe that I am the only one on that list still
> committing on a regular basis, and one other person shows up on occasion.
> All other activity is coming from new blood.  These old Flex libraries are
> in a similar bind, and I believe that bringing them to the ASF allows
> invites new blood to work on it.
>
> IMO, I would much rather be taught what the board is going to be worrying
> about and maybe provide notification instead of asking for permission, but
> if you really need me to keep asking, I will.
>
> Anyway, my takeaway so far is that folks have slightly questions for the
> past contributors of these two code bases.  I've picked up on two of them:
> 1) Did you really intend to license your work as AL, and 2) Are you ok
> with the Apache Flex being the community for your code?
>
> So, below is a draft of what I would send to them (for AS3Commons, I would
> have the PMC vote to accept the donation before sending this out to the
> contributors).  I still want to get a better sense for what our options
> are if we don't get 100% positive responses, and whether IP Clearance is
> required.  IMO, even if we did get every line under SGA/ICLA, and IP
> clearance passes there is still a chance that something is not right in
> the code base, so I think if we can get the major contributors to respond,
> we can look at what lines haven't been permitted and decide whether those
> lines can be at any more risk than the lines that have been signed for,
> and what the impact would be if we had to kick those lines out later.  And
> the lines of code we do decide to take, whether signed for or not, we will
> put through IP Clearance.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> - Draft ---
>
> [Friendly intro]
>
> A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
> Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
> development of the XXX code.  Normally, this is called a "donation" and
> requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
> licensed under Apache License 2.0, your contributions may be donated to
> the ASF by replying to this email to affirm that:
>
> 1) You agree that the code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
> 2) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
> copyright of the code you wrote.  You are only granting  a license to not
> only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
> 3) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
> enough contributors to this code base, the "donation" may be abandoned.
> 4) You understand that if this "donation" is completed, it means that
> whatever group of developers that existed around this code base should be
> disbanded.  We would want you to encourage all future downloads to come
> from, and changes applied to, the code base in an ASF-controlled code
> management and distribution system once the transfer is complete.
> 5) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
> wish to have continued involvement in 

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

On 11/28/15, 6:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:
>>
>>>Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all
>contributors isn't a common case, and there are both legal and social
>risks.
>I don't think we need a general solution for that problem, other than
>"Don't
>do this without consulting the Board first."

I can live having to bother the Board for each code base, but just so you
know, I may not be done after these two.  The fact is that there are lots
of little Flex-related libraries getting dusty on the shelves of
googlecode/github.  It seems like Flex is going to have to go through an
almost complete blood transfusion: we entered with a very large list of
initial committers and I believe that I am the only one on that list still
committing on a regular basis, and one other person shows up on occasion.
All other activity is coming from new blood.  These old Flex libraries are
in a similar bind, and I believe that bringing them to the ASF allows
invites new blood to work on it.

IMO, I would much rather be taught what the board is going to be worrying
about and maybe provide notification instead of asking for permission, but
if you really need me to keep asking, I will.

Anyway, my takeaway so far is that folks have slightly questions for the
past contributors of these two code bases.  I've picked up on two of them:
1) Did you really intend to license your work as AL, and 2) Are you ok
with the Apache Flex being the community for your code?

So, below is a draft of what I would send to them (for AS3Commons, I would
have the PMC vote to accept the donation before sending this out to the
contributors).  I still want to get a better sense for what our options
are if we don't get 100% positive responses, and whether IP Clearance is
required.  IMO, even if we did get every line under SGA/ICLA, and IP
clearance passes there is still a chance that something is not right in
the code base, so I think if we can get the major contributors to respond,
we can look at what lines haven't been permitted and decide whether those
lines can be at any more risk than the lines that have been signed for,
and what the impact would be if we had to kick those lines out later.  And
the lines of code we do decide to take, whether signed for or not, we will
put through IP Clearance.

Thoughts?
-Alex

- Draft ---

[Friendly intro]

A major contributor of XXX has indicated a desire to have the Apache
Software Foundation's Apache Flex project be the new home of future
development of the XXX code.  Normally, this is called a "donation" and
requires a bunch of legal paperwork, but because this code base is already
licensed under Apache License 2.0, your contributions may be donated to
the ASF by replying to this email to affirm that:

1) You agree that the code you wrote is licensed under Apache License 2.0
2) You understand that under the Apache License 2.0, you retain the
copyright of the code you wrote.  You are only granting  a license to not
only the Apache Software Foundation (the ASF), but to anyone else as well.
3) You understand that if we cannot get enough affirmative emails from
enough contributors to this code base, the "donation" may be abandoned.
4) You understand that if this "donation" is completed, it means that
whatever group of developers that existed around this code base should be
disbanded.  We would want you to encourage all future downloads to come
from, and changes applied to, the code base in an ASF-controlled code
management and distribution system once the transfer is complete.
5) You understand that if you are not already an Apache Flex Committer and
wish to have continued involvement in changes to this code base, we can
discuss separately the steps to become a Committer.

Thanks,
Alex Harui, for the
Apache Flex PMC.
 
- End Draft -


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Harbs]

Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache 
License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any question 
about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that contributed even 
if they don’t understand licenses (not very likely) will care. I think it 
unlikely that code was taken from elsewhere

Getting an ICLA from all contributors is just about impossible.

So the question is can the donation of the one contact we do have suffice in 
this case, or do we need to leave the code.

The commit history of both projects is still available on Google Code, so it 
should be possible to go through that if it would help. (Of course a3commons 
had close to 2000 commits so that’s going to be a lot of work…)

Harbs

[1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/
[2]https://code.google.com/p/swizframework/

On Nov 28, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> 
> Alex
> 
> The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is 
> correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be applied 
> or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means or what 
> granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it out.  
> 
> Most people just won't care especially in a moribund project. 
> 
> Also, the email confirmation is just for small bits.  And iCla would be 
> preferable for big bits. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 15:13, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
>>> A simple email confirmation should be fine.
>> 
>> So, no ICLA required from these contributors?  And if we don't hear back
>> from a contributor, we can't take his code?  And does the code that does
>> get permission still have to go through IP Clearance or do we trust it
>> because it is already AL?
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Harbs]

The code was originally on Google Code and has 26 people listed there.[1]

[1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/people/list

On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

>> 2) AS3Commons
> 
> Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the 
> contributors has already been asked, would it be so hard to ask the other?

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Alex

The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is 
correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be applied 
or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means or what 
granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it out.  

Most people just won't care especially in a moribund project. 

Also, the email confirmation is just for small bits.  And iCla would be 
preferable for big bits. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 28, 2015, at 15:13, Alex Harui  wrote:

>> A simple email confirmation should be fine.
> 
> So, no ICLA required from these contributors?  And if we don't hear back
> from a contributor, we can't take his code?  And does the code that does
> get permission still have to go through IP Clearance or do we trust it
> because it is already AL?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Niall Pemberton]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Harbs  wrote:

> Both Swiz and AS3Commons were originally hosted on Google Code and Apache
> License was clearly stated there[1][2]. So I don’t think there’s any
> question about the license. Like you said, it’s not likely anyone that
> contributed even if they don’t understand licenses (not very likely) will
> care. I think it unlikely that code was taken from elsewhere
>
> Getting an ICLA from all contributors is just about impossible.
>
> So the question is can the donation of the one contact we do have suffice
> in this case, or do we need to leave the code.
>
> The commit history of both projects is still available on Google Code, so
> it should be possible to go through that if it would help. (Of course
> a3commons had close to 2000 commits so that’s going to be a lot of work…)
>

Attached is a summary of commits by committer  in CSV format of a3commons
trunk on googlecode - most "authors"  are mail addresses - so would be easy
to mail all of them

Niall


>
> Harbs
>
> [1]https://code.google.com/p/as3-commons/
> [2]https://code.google.com/p/swizframework/
>
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > The question is whether the claim that the code is actually under ASL is
> correct. If the contributors didn't understand that the ASL was to be
> applied or have some grotesque misunderstanding about what copyright means
> or what granting an irrevocable license means, it is good to flush it out.
> >
> > Most people just won't care especially in a moribund project.
> >
> > Also, the email confirmation is just for small bits.  And iCla would be
> preferable for big bits.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2015, at 15:13, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >
> >>> A simple email confirmation should be fine.
> >>
> >> So, no ICLA required from these contributors?  And if we don't hear back
> >> from a contributor, we can't take his code?  And does the code that does
> >> get permission still have to go through IP Clearance or do we trust it
> >> because it is already AL?
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
a3commons Commits,,
http://as3-commons.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/,,
,,
Author,Number of Commits,First Commit,Last Commit,Added,Updated,Deleted
s...@dds.nl,909,2010-09-15,2013-08-15,869,2769,123
christophe.herre...@gmail.com,395,2009-02-27,2012-08-23,683,771,67
roland.zw...@gmail.com,78,2009-10-29,2010-09-11,277,434,2
jens.struwe,55,2010-02-22,2011-09-19,564,957,29
martino.piccin...@gmail.com,39,2009-03-05,2011-07-08,43,79,8
mastakan...@gmail.com,35,2011-06-16,2011-09-11,173,506,34
martin.heideg...@gmail.com,23,2011-09-22,2012-03-29,140,177,97
b3rt.vanda...@gmail.com,21,2012-07-24,2014-04-17,14,33,4
ihatelively...@gmail.com,20,2010-09-16,2010-12-05,32,127,0
jamesghand...@gmail.com,19,2010-08-17,2011-10-19,0,35,1
m...@teotigraphix.com,14,2011-08-03,2011-09-06,336,30,3
alewisohn,12,2010-05-06,2010-05-13,119,34,2
evangifford,8,2009-11-18,2010-04-27,61,12,2
j...@jonnyreeves.co.uk,6,2011-04-14,2011-04-15,6,8,0
bitsofinf...@gmail.com,5,2009-10-28,2009-12-11,26,3,0
jlward...@gmail.com,3,2011-03-16,2011-04-05,1,4,0
d...@firstbourne.com,2,2012-04-16,2012-04-16,0,2,0
jan.vancoppenolle,2,2011-09-14,2011-09-14,26,0,1

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your answer.  If the
>>> answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working with it as 3rd
>>> party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks" as Ted said,
>>> then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.
>>
>> Please make a concrete proposal rather than justify such a course of
>> action on the basis of the VP Legal's participation in hypothetical
>> discussion.
>
> OK, sounds like PMCs are not empowered to make a judgement call here.

Thanks for providing details.

When we assume control over a project, the common case is that we have the
consent of all contributors.  That's covered by our SGA procedures, with or
without incubation.

Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all
contributors isn't a common case, and there are both legal and social risks.
I don't think we need a general solution for that problem, other than "Don't
do this without consulting the Board first."  The Board might choose to
involve the Incubator or it might not.  (I'd rather the Incubator be left out
of it unless full incubation was prescribed, but that's a side issue.) It
might choose to delegate to VP Legal or it might not.  But the informal
discussion we're having now shouldn't be taken as setting general policy.

Your points about not having all code associated with an SGA/ICLA are salient.
Ideally, we would like to trace back every line of code to either an SGA or an
ICLA, and we try hard to make that happen, both when a codebase is taken in
and during ongoing development.

However, even if we achieve that ideal, having someone to blame is not an
impregnable legal defense in the event that a bad contribution sneaks in.
(For instance, if a deep-pocketed corporation gets sued for redistributing an
ASF product that infringes on someone's copyright, they might try to recover
damages from the ASF itself, the committer, the committer's employer or
whoever else they can throw lawyers at, but there might not be enough money
there to cover everything.)  We strive for high standards, but must reconcile
ourselves to imperfection.

And so, when there is an ALv2 codebase for which it isn't feasible to track
down every last copyright holder, some judgment calls are in order.  The
situation with Groovy's SGA was heavily discussed; the Incubator specializes
in such matters, multiple Board members participated in the thread, and how we
resolved the situation wound up in our April 2015 report.  It is arguable that
we have somewhat weaker guarantees with commits in Groovy's history than we do
for other projects because we did not chase down every last contributor.
However, our best defense at the ASF is vigilance by dedicated PMC members --
and in that regard, Groovy's core contributors impressed as few others have.
I think the Incubator made a reasonable call.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey"  wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
>> answer.  If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue
>>working
>> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the
>>risks"
>> as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward
>>trade-off.
>
>Please make a concrete proposal rather than justify such a course of
>action on the basis of the VP Legal's participation in hypothetical
>discussion.

OK, sounds like PMCs are not empowered to make a judgement call here.
Here are two cases:

1) Swiz Framework.

This code base was proposed for donation way back in 2013.  There was even
a vote thread [1] and emails from one of the contributors who was trying
to sort through the paperwork [2].  Code base is here [3].  I believe he
got busy with other things and simply couldn't find motivation to try to
hunt down the small contributors and gave up.

[1] Vote Thread
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flex-dev/201306.mbox/%3cCAMFKFRi_t
mgwdx78flhhfj+5wjnnk-0hqo0lxohzh8duhe9...@mail.gmail.com%3e

[2] Email from contributor:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flex-dev/201307.mbox/%3cCAHG52k5q-
qdg3mipbecilhky9xwolk1v6j9s-jgxepk+spc...@mail.gmail.com%3e

[3] Current Code base:
https://github.com/swiz/

2) AS3Commons


A major contributor, who is also a committer, asked about donating this
code base to the ASF.  Because of the issue tracking down past
contributors for Swiz, I recommended that he make sure he knew how to get
in touch with all past contributors before we officially proposed this
donation to the project.  So there is no discuss or vote thread yet.
Because he is also busy doing other things, he has not found the time to
hunt down all past contributors.  Code base is here [4]

[4] https://github.com/AS3Commons

Thanks,
-Alex



>
>Marvin Humphrey
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Pierre Smits]

I guess, that is the difference between 'The Apache Way' and anyother
way

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> > Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
> > answer.  If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
> > with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the
> risks"
> > as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.
>
> Please make a concrete proposal rather than justify such a course of
> action on the basis of the VP Legal's participation in hypothetical
> discussion.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:
>
> >There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
> >license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
> >contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
>
> OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control of
> these projects without paperwork from every contributor?  That's what I
> was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed
> because several of the past contributors have moved on to other things and
> aren't following those projects anymore.


I don't think that this is hard and fast, but unless I was pretty sure that
nobody would rise from the dead and bitch and moan, I would be a bit
cautious.

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Harbs]

I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those projects is 
close to zero.

Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them.

Harbs

On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
>> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:
>> 
>>> There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
>>> license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
>>> contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
>> 
>> OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control of
>> these projects without paperwork from every contributor?  That's what I
>> was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed
>> because several of the past contributors have moved on to other things and
>> aren't following those projects anymore.
> 
> 
> I don't think that this is hard and fast, but unless I was pretty sure that
> nobody would rise from the dead and bitch and moan, I would be a bit
> cautious.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> 1) Swiz Framework.

There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which have 
ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?

> 2) AS3Commons

Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the contributors 
has already been asked, would it be so hard to ask the other?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[jonathon]

Alex wrote:

>sounds like PMCs are not empowrd to make a judgement call gere.
>Here are two cases:

Can anybody do the grunt work/due diligence in obtaining 
permission/authorization/whatever for ASF clearence, or is that function limted 
to current/former members of the community the cde originatedat/from?

jonathon

-- 
MultilingualODF Support

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

On 11/27/15, 3:36 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> 1) Swiz Framework.
>
>There have been 6 contributors (not looking at pull requests), 5 of which
>have ben active in github this year. Would it be so hard to ask them?

Strange, my GH view showed 12.  And what do we ask?  To sign an SGA or
something else?  And how many positive responses do we need?  Until this
thread came up, I thought we had to get all of them on an SGA.

>
>> 2) AS3Commons
>
>Which has two contributors and no closed pull requests. One of the
>contributors has already been asked, would it be so hard to ask the other?

The contributor I talked with implied that there were more than two
contributors, and my past attempts to reach one of them have not been
successful.  We can try again, once we know what to ask.

-Alex

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Pierre,

I don't understand your comment. Could you help clarify it?

A) was this sarcasm? If so, please indicate what you are being sarcastic about 
and I will respond however you like. If this was just intended as snarky, no 
need to clarify

B) do you think that there is a real issue here?

C) are you saying that we are being too cautious?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 3:04, Pierre Smits  wrote:
> 
> I guess, that is the difference between 'The Apache Way' and anyother
> way
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre Smits

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to incorporate 
the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their contribution being 
licensed as ASL. 

A simple email confirmation should be fine.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 12:40, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Strange, my GH view showed 12.  And what do we ask?  To sign an SGA or
> something else?  And how many positive responses do we need?  Until this
> thread came up, I thought we had to get all of them on an SGA.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Strange, my GH view showed 12.

That includes pull requests.

>  And what do we ask?  To sign an SGA or something else?

a) If they are OK to have the code donated to Apache b) have they signed an 
ICLA for the project and if not would they be willing to sign an Apache one.

>  And how many positive responses do we need?  Until this
> thread came up, I thought we had to get all of them on an SGA.

My understanding is Apache generally doesn’t require an ICLA for a small amount 
of code i.e. a pull request, so if you can get all of the major contributors to 
sign ICLAs that may be enough.

> The contributor I talked with implied that there were more than two
> contributors

I can only see 2 people involved at that github repo, so you may want to double 
check that.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

The key question is whether the code winds up in an apache repo.  If it is 
downloaded during build, no problem. If you download it and check it in as 
source then we need to cross t's and dot i's a bit. 

The term bundling is not terribly precise. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:28, Alex Harui  wrote:
> 
> Also can I double-check on your statement of "include, bundle or fork a
> codebase for our usage within a project"?  I assume that "usage" here
> means "placing into the repos for modification" vs straight-up bundling
> where we download some upstream dependency as-is.  I wasn't aware we were
> supposed to ask for as-is bundling.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

On 11/27/15, 10:50 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:

>
>Explain that you represent an apache project which would like to
>incorporate the project in question. Ask if they are cool with their
>contribution being licensed as ASL.

The code is already under AL.  I think we want them to give permission to
make the ASF the new home for future development?

>
>A simple email confirmation should be fine.

So, no ICLA required from these contributors?  And if we don't hear back
from a contributor, we can't take his code?  And does the code that does
get permission still have to go through IP Clearance or do we trust it
because it is already AL?

Thanks,
-Alex


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Jim Jagielski]

As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN
do and what we SHOULD do.

We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically,
and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what
we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by the
conditions of the License, we are fine.

However, we have a long standing tradition of always asking
permission whenever we even include, bundle or fork a codebase
for our usage within a project. If we were to take over an
entire codebase in order to create a project and community around
it, we should really ensure that the original project and esp.
the community are A-OK with that, support that and will help
with that.

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Harbs  wrote:
> 
> I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those projects is 
> close to zero.
> 
> Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them.
> 
> Harbs
> 
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:
>>> 
 There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
 license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
 contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
>>> 
>>> OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control of
>>> these projects without paperwork from every contributor?  That's what I
>>> was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed
>>> because several of the past contributors have moved on to other things and
>>> aren't following those projects anymore.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think that this is hard and fast, but unless I was pretty sure that
>> nobody would rise from the dead and bitch and moan, I would be a bit
>> cautious.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

Hi Jim,

In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we
are placing it under control of an existing PMC.   Plus, there is
effectively no community left.  Nobody has made a change to these projects
in 4 years.  A major contributor from each project has indicated their
desire to have our PMC take control, but they are unable to hunt down
every past contributor and get their permission, so the question really is
about whether the ASF would permit an existing PMC to take over
change-control for a code base when we don't have permission for every
line of code.  Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
answer.  If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks"
as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.

Also can I double-check on your statement of "include, bundle or fork a
codebase for our usage within a project"?  I assume that "usage" here
means "placing into the repos for modification" vs straight-up bundling
where we download some upstream dependency as-is.  I wasn't aware we were
supposed to ask for as-is bundling.

Thanks
-Alex

On 11/27/15, 7:08 AM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:

>As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN
>do and what we SHOULD do.
>
>We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically,
>and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what
>we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by the
>conditions of the License, we are fine.
>
>However, we have a long standing tradition of always asking
>permission whenever we even include, bundle or fork a codebase
>for our usage within a project. If we were to take over an
>entire codebase in order to create a project and community around
>it, we should really ensure that the original project and esp.
>the community are A-OK with that, support that and will help
>with that.
>
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Harbs  wrote:
>> 
>> I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those
>>projects is close to zero.
>> 
>> Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them.
>> 
>> Harbs
>> 
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>> 
 On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:
 
> There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
> license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all
>of the
> contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.
 
 OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control
of
 these projects without paperwork from every contributor?  That's what
I
 was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed
 because several of the past contributors have moved on to other
things and
 aren't following those projects anymore.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't think that this is hard and fast, but unless I was pretty sure
>>>that
>>> nobody would rise from the dead and bitch and moan, I would be a bit
>>> cautious.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your
> answer.  If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working
> with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks"
> as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.

Please make a concrete proposal rather than justify such a course of
action on the basis of the VP Legal's participation in hypothetical
discussion.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.



On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Owen O'Malley  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of
> the
> > original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted.  I've always
> > assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base,
> even
> > ones under AL, had to come in with an SGA signed by ALL of the original
> > copyright holders.
> >
>
> Apache doesn't want to fork communities, because it generates bad will from
> the other community. Obviously we can legally incorporate any ALv2 code
> into our code bases, but we limit ourselves to friendly adoptions to play
> nicely with others.
>
>
> > Specifically, there are two code bases under AL where the major
> > contributors have indicated that they would like our project to take over
> > change-control.  These donations have been held up by trying to chase
> down
> > all of the folks who made smaller contributions and getting them to sign
> > an SGA.  There really isn't any community around these code bases right
> > now, but our project is interested in them because under ASF practices,
> > they can at least get occasional attention without the major contributors
> > having to be involved.
> >
>
> Is the other community alive? Is there consensus for moving to Apache
> within that other community? Those seems like the right questions. Have you
> started a discussion of moving to Apache on the public list of the other
> project? What was the response?
>
> Is an SGA needed?  If not, is there a recommended practice for providing
> > notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the
> > change-control for code base is moving to the ASF?
>
>
>  In my opinion, if the other community is dead or wants to move to Apache,
> the committers ICLA should be sufficient, given that the license is ALv2.
>
> .. Owen
>

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning"  wrote:

>There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor
>license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all of the
>contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL.

OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control of
these projects without paperwork from every contributor?  That's what I
was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed
because several of the past contributors have moved on to other things and
aren't following those projects anymore.

>
>On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Owen O'Malley  wrote:
>
>> Is the other community alive? Is there consensus for moving to Apache
>> within that other community? Those seems like the right questions. Have
>>you
>> started a discussion of moving to Apache on the public list of the other
>> project? What was the response?
>>
>> Is an SGA needed?  If not, is there a recommended practice for providing
>> > notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the
>> > change-control for code base is moving to the ASF?
>>
>>
>>  In my opinion, if the other community is dead or wants to move to
>>Apache,
>> the committers ICLA should be sufficient, given that the license is
>>ALv2.

These communities are effectively dead.  I know one contributor from each
project and they are the ones interested in donating.  No commits in 4
years.  But I think that since not all past contributors have Apache ICLAs
we can't take over change control.

-Alex


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[John D. Ament]

If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and
signed it himself.  no other contributors signed the SGA.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.
>
> I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
> original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted.  I've always
> assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
> ones under AL, had to come in with an SGA signed by ALL of the original
> copyright holders.
>
> Specifically, there are two code bases under AL where the major
> contributors have indicated that they would like our project to take over
> change-control.  These donations have been held up by trying to chase down
> all of the folks who made smaller contributions and getting them to sign
> an SGA.  There really isn't any community around these code bases right
> now, but our project is interested in them because under ASF practices,
> they can at least get occasional attention without the major contributors
> having to be involved.
>
> Is an SGA needed?  If not, is there a recommended practice for providing
> notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the
> change-control for code base is moving to the ASF?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/24/15, 8:01 PM, "Owen O'Malley"  wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Alex,
> >> > >
> >> > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that
> >> > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of
> >> > >the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If
> >> > >it’s not the case, we go by the license of the project which
> >>stipulates
> >> > >how code can be copied, modified, reused, etc.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but my interpretation of your words is that folks have to opt
> >>out,
> >> >
> >>
> >> Correct: opt-out.
> >>
> >> Since this code is under ALv2, we can import it to the ASF under that
> >> license. We have always done stuff like this, including other permissive
> >> licenses.
> >>
> >> But this isn't simply importing a library, this is saying "the ASF is
> >>now
> >> the primary locus of development for >this< code." And that's where
> >>people
> >> can say, "woah. I hate you guys. don't develop my code there", and so we
> >> nuke it.
> >>
> >> SGA/iCLA is to give us rights that we otherwise wouldn't have (ie. the
> >>code
> >> was under a different license).
> >>
> >
> >It is worth looking back at the thread on Bloodhound
> ><
> http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_m
> >box%2Fincubator-general%2F201201.mbox%2F%253C0F2EA54E-4419-428F-A604-46EF5
> >9C40469%2540gbiv.com
> %253E=D=1=AFQjCNG4tmh9dY86HFVyRZlTE66tCjvh
> >Kg>
> >.
> >
> >The important thing is that Apache doesn't fork communities. In this case,
> >the community wants to move to Apache. That is great and should be
> >allowed.
> >They shouldn't need to get an explicit permission from each contributor
> >over the years.
> >
> >.. Owen
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

[Alex Harui]

Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu.

I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the
original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted.  I've always
assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even
ones under AL, had to come in with an SGA signed by ALL of the original
copyright holders.

Specifically, there are two code bases under AL where the major
contributors have indicated that they would like our project to take over
change-control.  These donations have been held up by trying to chase down
all of the folks who made smaller contributions and getting them to sign
an SGA.  There really isn't any community around these code bases right
now, but our project is interested in them because under ASF practices,
they can at least get occasional attention without the major contributors
having to be involved.

Is an SGA needed?  If not, is there a recommended practice for providing
notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the
change-control for code base is moving to the ASF?

Thanks,
-Alex

On 11/24/15, 8:01 PM, "Owen O'Malley"  wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>>
>> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)"
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > >Alex,
>> > >
>> > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that
>> > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of
>> > >the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If
>> > >it’s not the case, we go by the license of the project which
>>stipulates
>> > >how code can be copied, modified, reused, etc.
>> >
>> > Yes, but my interpretation of your words is that folks have to opt
>>out,
>> >
>>
>> Correct: opt-out.
>>
>> Since this code is under ALv2, we can import it to the ASF under that
>> license. We have always done stuff like this, including other permissive
>> licenses.
>>
>> But this isn't simply importing a library, this is saying "the ASF is
>>now
>> the primary locus of development for >this< code." And that's where
>>people
>> can say, "woah. I hate you guys. don't develop my code there", and so we
>> nuke it.
>>
>> SGA/iCLA is to give us rights that we otherwise wouldn't have (ie. the
>>code
>> was under a different license).
>>
>
>It is worth looking back at the thread on Bloodhound
>box%2Fincubator-general%2F201201.mbox%2F%253C0F2EA54E-4419-428F-A604-46EF5
>9C40469%2540gbiv.com%253E=D=1=AFQjCNG4tmh9dY86HFVyRZlTE66tCjvh
>Kg>
>.
>
>The important thing is that Apache doesn't fork communities. In this case,
>the community wants to move to Apache. That is great and should be
>allowed.
>They shouldn't need to get an explicit permission from each contributor
>over the years.
>
>.. Owen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org