Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[paul_a]

Thanks Justin,

 

We believe that we have now.  They are mostly from the same person/company,
but as they're going to go into two distinct repos, and do different things
- one is a library which can facilitate a whole load of things including the
other the feature in the other repo. I'm leaning towards two forms to keep
the index.xml file in a consistent format.

 

 

Kind regards




Paul Angus

 

  _  

From: Justin Mclean 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 9:21:43 AM
To: Paul Angus 
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org ; Rohit Yadav

Subject: Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform 

 

Hi,

Assume we have enough information abut the provanance and they are from the
same person/company I think one form is OK, but it may be easier to manage
with two forms.

Thanks,
Justin 

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Assume we have enough information abut the provanance and they are from the 
same person/company I think one form is OK, but it may be easier to manage with 
two forms.

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Thanks Daniel for confirming. In that case I think we don't have any
outstanding concerns, all the guidance and advice we've received on
this thread has been attempted and resolved.

Hi Paul - I think both Daniel and Justin have been answered and we can
continue. Kindly review and start a formal "[IP CLEARANCE]" thread on
general@incubator as per
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
tracking the IP clearance at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159

Regards.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 1:00 PM Daniel Widdis  wrote:
>
> I have no concerns.  I am not a member of the IPMC, just an interested 
> participant in the conversation.
>
> On 7/11/21, 11:25 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC,
>
> Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other
> questions/concerns, or can we continue with the IP clearance vote?
> It has been three weeks since this thread, while the Apache CloudStack
> PMC has passed the vote to accept donations in April 2021. If there
> are any, can you advise by the end of tomorrow?
>
> Regards.
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags 
> that is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party 
> code in vendor directory have been all removed too.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean,  
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
> >> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
> >> > in both the repositories being donated:
> >> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
> >> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
> >> > vendor removed in this commit -
> >> > 
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152)
> >>
> >> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been 
> removed? What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of 
> 3rd party code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd 
> party code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non 
> ASF header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the 
> repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated 
> code?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
>
>

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Daniel Widdis]

I have no concerns.  I am not a member of the IPMC, just an interested 
participant in the conversation.

On 7/11/21, 11:25 PM, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC,

Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other
questions/concerns, or can we continue with the IP clearance vote?
It has been three weeks since this thread, while the Apache CloudStack
PMC has passed the vote to accept donations in April 2021. If there
are any, can you advise by the end of tomorrow?

Regards.

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags 
that is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party 
code in vendor directory have been all removed too.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean,  
wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
>> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
>> > in both the repositories being donated:
>> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
>> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
>> > vendor removed in this commit -
>> > 
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152)
>>
>> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been 
removed? What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of 3rd 
party code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd party 
code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non ASF header 
and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the repos all 
headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated code?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>



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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC,

Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other
questions/concerns, or can we continue with the IP clearance vote?
It has been three weeks since this thread, while the Apache CloudStack
PMC has passed the vote to accept donations in April 2021. If there
are any, can you advise by the end of tomorrow?

Regards.

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:56 AM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags that 
> is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd party code 
> in vendor directory have been all removed too.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean,  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
>> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
>> > in both the repositories being donated:
>> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
>> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
>> > vendor removed in this commit -
>> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152)
>>
>> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been removed? 
>> What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of 3rd party 
>> code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd party 
>> code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non ASF 
>> header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the 
>> repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated 
>> code?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Justin,

Yes that's right, there's no 3rd party code in the latest codebase/tags
that is being donated. And yes, the large commits that brought the 3rd
party code in vendor directory have been all removed too.

Regards.

On Sat, 10 Jul, 2021, 6:26 am Justin Mclean, 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
> > repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
> > in both the repositories being donated:
> > https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
> > https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
> > vendor removed in this commit -
> >
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152
> )
>
> So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been
> removed? What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of
> 3rd party code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with
> 3rd party code in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct
> non ASF header and its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking
> at the repos all headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the
> donated code?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
> repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
> in both the repositories being donated:
> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
> vendor removed in this commit -
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152)

So what you are saying is that all of those large commits have been removed? 
What I would be concerned about happening is if a large amount of 3rd party 
code incorrectly gets an ASF header on it. There no issue with 3rd party code 
in the repo but it must be clearly marked, have the correct non ASF header and 
its license compatible with the Apache license. Looking at the repos all 
headers are ASF ones, is there any 3rd party code in the donated code?

Thanks,
Justin


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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Justin,

Please see Daniel's email on the commits that introduce the vendor
related codebase. Sharing the links of the two commits from Daniel's
email:
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/07febb7a6ba78e27224b37ad41e23bc4634b18b4
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/29c9bb4593b98f47add0c3eb69253290fe02a893

However, if you compare the changes in above commits against the
repositories being donated the "vendor" directory does not exist now
in both the repositories being donated:
https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (for example
vendor removed in this commit -
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/4db2f701592b5af74376f5b138624bff75763152)

I personally don't agree with Daniel's remarks that each and every
commit of the git repositories must be checked and pass IP clearance,
which is why I suggest instead of the git repository (with history) we
can just import the codebase tarball/source using the git tag source
as these tags/heads don't have the vendor codebase (i.e. the 3rd party
codebase not written by the contributors):
https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack/releases/tag/apache-license-2.0
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/releases/tag/apache-license-2.0

I look forward to IPMC's advice, thanks.

Regards.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:33 PM Justin Mclean  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > 3. On concern of IP on 3rd party codebase committed by authors - the
> > codebase/changes are in the vendor directory which is where most of
> > the (3rd party) code additions/deletions are seen.
>
> Is this code clearly marked as 3rd party code and has the correct 3rd party 
> headers? I don’t see any vendor directory or 3rd party code in the proposed 
> donation. Please point these out.  I am yet to see any explanation to where 
> some of these large commits have come from, and that IMO is a concern. I can 
> only assume I’m missing some information, perhaps it would be helpful to list 
> each of those large commits and where the code originally come from, if they 
> were not the committers IP.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> 3. On concern of IP on 3rd party codebase committed by authors - the
> codebase/changes are in the vendor directory which is where most of
> the (3rd party) code additions/deletions are seen. 

Is this code clearly marked as 3rd party code and has the correct 3rd party 
headers? I don’t see any vendor directory or 3rd party code in the proposed 
donation. Please point these out.  I am yet to see any explanation to where 
some of these large commits have come from, and that IMO is a concern. I can 
only assume I’m missing some information, perhaps it would be helpful to list 
each of those large commits and where the code originally come from, if they 
were not the committers IP.

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Daniel,

Are you satisfied with my reply to your email/concerns? Please see if
you haven't: https://markmail.org/message/bbqiqyj23na6vuaq

Summary:
1. We've confirmation from all/main contributors by number of commits,
code addition and deletion tracked at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159
2. We've the IP grants and ICLA from the repository owner Sander van
Harmelen which were also acknowledged by secretary@ ASF
3. On concern of IP on 3rd party codebase committed by authors - the
codebase/changes are in the vendor directory which is where most of
the (3rd party) code additions/deletions are seen. The vendor folder
(or vendoring) is not part of the codebase but is included in the
repositories for Go-based projects for build/tooling purposes as a
standard practice (see https://golang.org/ref/mod#vendoring for more
information). Many Apache Go-based projects include vendoring or a
vendor folder with dependency codebase (for example:
https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/tree/master/vendor,
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-cloudmonkey/tree/main/vendor). I
think due to vendoring as a standard feature of Go-based projects and
tooling, we can exclude IP concerns on vendoring. Or, if that's not
satisfactory we can import the codebase from tarball (i.e. lose the
git history) excluding the vendor folder and later re-generate the
vendor folder using the "go mod tidy" or "go mod vendor" command post
codebase import or during building.

Regards.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:17 PM Paul Angus  wrote:
>
>
> @Rohit Yadav   can you ensure that Daniel is happy that his questions have 
> been answered so that we can continue
> + you need to cc me specifically if you need my attention.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Angus
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Mclean 
> Sent: 09 July 2021 02:04
> To: Paul Angus 
> Cc: Sander van Harmelen ; 
>  
> Subject: Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
>
> HI,
>
> > I've seen that you had some queries/concerns regarding the number of
> > people who have/haven't given consent (Tue 22/06/2021 13:46 GMT), It's
> > hard to follow the whole thread now, but it's not clear to me that the
> > queries/concerns have been answered to your satisfaction.
>
> I’m not sure the project has answered Daniel's questions about IP provenance.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

ACS PMC,

The IP clearance is tracked at
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159 and we have been in
the position since last week to start the vote on incubator@. I've
asked a few times but haven't heard from our volunteer ASF member Paul
Angus. As my last attempt to Paul - are you able to
(1) check the XML doc
(https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml),
(2) post a message to general@incubator asking for clearance to be
checked (72hrs window),
(3) post a result thread and let project know code is cleared for import?
... as per 
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process

In the meanwhile I ask ASC PMC chair Gabriel to prepare to volunteer
or help find an appropriate volunteer and do (1)-(3) starting
Monday/next week. Tagging Sebastien too who has been IP clearance
officer for a couple of donations under the ACS project - who may
volunteer or advise us.

I'm happy to volunteer but I'm neither an officer nor a member of the
ASF; but I may have incubator karma (http://people.apache.org/~rohit)
if that means ability to commit the IP clearance xml doc to incubator
SVN. I've committed and updated the IP clearance XML today
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
which must be checked by whoever starts the vote on general@incubator.

Thanks and regards.



On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:33 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
> Hi Dan and all of IPMC,
>
> Sorry I missed the previous email [1] on the thread as I'm not subscribed to 
> the general@ ML and missed the email. (Thanks Justin for the heads up)
> I kindly request reply-all (to include the ACS PMC) or include me if you're 
> looking for a response from me, since this is rather a public thread that the 
> ACS PMCs may also want to be copied to.
>
> Based on 
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=a
>  (contributors by additions of code), all the top #5 contributors have agreed 
> or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on the ML, 
> namely (using their Github handles): grubernaut,  svanharmelen, radeksimko, 
> benjvi, and cezarsa.
>
> (While code deletions may not be relevant?) ... based on 
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=d
>  (contributors by deletion of code), all the top #3 contributors have also 
> agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on 
> the ML, namely (using their Github handles): svanharmelen, grubernaut, and 
> cezarsa.
>
> These Github handles/contributors can be cross referenced against the Github 
> issue [2] tracking IP clearance for documentation purposes.
>
> Can the IPMC review this tracker issue [2] by the end of this week and advise 
> if there are any objections and actions we're supposed to do before starting 
> a vote? Lastly, can the IPMC also advise what's the process of being granted 
> karma to start a vote for IP clearance, do a ACS PMC who is also an ASF 
> member or our ACS PMC chair need to do that (asking in case I need to 
> volunteer and start the vote)? Thanks.
>
> [1] https://markmail.org/message/yxqh5ndu4vnotrti
> [2] The IP clearance tracking issue: 
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process [1] 
>> and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and software 
>> grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been acknowledged 
>> by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been asked for any 
>> objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import initiatives. To 
>> date we've not received any objections from contributors and most 
>> contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on the Github 
>> issue [2].
>>
>> Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the 
>> completed IP clearance XML form 
>> (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml),
>>  (2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result 
>> thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import.
>>
>> I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any 
>> further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@ 
>> or are busy and aren't able to do so this time?
>> If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC 
>> chair Gabriel to volunteer or find a volunteer per [1].
>> (I'm happy to volunteer as well, looks like I can svn commit the XML file. 
>> I'll discuss/ask again on Wed)
>>
>> [1] IP clearance process: 
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
>> [2] Github issue tracking IP clearance: 
>> 

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Hi Dan and all of IPMC,

Sorry I missed the previous email [1] on the thread as I'm not subscribed
to the general@ ML and missed the email. (Thanks Justin for the heads up)
I kindly request reply-all (to include the ACS PMC) or include me if you're
looking for a response from me, since this is rather a public thread that
the ACS PMCs may also want to be copied to.

Based on
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=a
(contributors by additions of code), all the top #5 contributors have
agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on
the ML, namely (using their Github
handles): grubernaut,  svanharmelen, radeksimko, benjvi, and cezarsa.

(While code deletions may not be relevant?) ... based on
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors?type=d
(contributors by deletion of code), all the top #3 contributors have also
agreed or shared their no objections either on the Github issue above or on
the ML, namely (using their Github handles): svanharmelen,
grubernaut, and cezarsa.

These Github handles/contributors can be cross referenced against the
Github issue [2] tracking IP clearance for documentation purposes.

Can the IPMC review this tracker issue [2] by the end of this week and
advise if there are any objections and actions we're supposed to do before
starting a vote? Lastly, can the IPMC also advise what's the process of
being granted karma to start a vote for IP clearance, do a ACS PMC who is
also an ASF member or our ACS PMC chair need to do that (asking in case I
need to volunteer and start the vote)? Thanks.

[1] https://markmail.org/message/yxqh5ndu4vnotrti
[2] The IP clearance tracking issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159

Regards.



On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:

> All,
>
> We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process
> [1] and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and
> software grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been
> acknowledged by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been
> asked for any objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import
> initiatives. To date we've not received any objections from contributors
> and most contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on
> the Github issue [2].
>
> Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the
> completed IP clearance XML form (
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml),
> (2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result
> thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import.
>
> I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any
> further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@
> or are busy and aren't able to do so this time?
> If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC
> chair Gabriel to volunteer or find a volunteer per [1].
> (I'm happy to volunteer as well, looks like I can svn commit the XML file.
> I'll discuss/ask again on Wed)
>
> [1] IP clearance process:
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
> [2] Github issue tracking IP clearance:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159
>
> Regards.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors
>> via this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process:
>> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159
>>
>> As per
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
>> I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on
>> Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any
>> objections).
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to
>>> track IP
>>> > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
>>> > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree
>>> over
>>> > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs.
>>>
>>> While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the
>>> major contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already
>>> have that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and
>>> continue. It might be possible that other IPMC members might have a
>>> different view on this.
>>>
>>> > This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
>>> > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>>>
>>> It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a
>>> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of
>>> IP must sign one of the three 

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

All,

We've completed most of the actions [1][2] per the IP clearance process [1]
and the initiative is tracked by a Github issue [2]. The ICLA and software
grants by the codebase/repo owner Sander van Harmelen has been acknowledged
by ASF secretary@ to PMC and all contributors have been asked for any
objections to the IP clearance / codebase relicensing/import initiatives.
To date we've not received any objections from contributors and most
contributors have agreed to this either over email thread or on the Github
issue [2].

Now we need an Officer or Member of the ASF to (1) check and commit the
completed IP clearance XML form (
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml),
(2) Start a vote on general@incubator, and finally (3) post the result
thread and notify the ACS PMC that codebase are cleared for import.

I had asked Paul last week who originally volunteered but hadn't seen any
further action. Paul can you confirm if you can start a vote on incubator@
or are busy and aren't able to do so this time?
If we don't hear from Paul in the next 72 hrs I propose we have our PMC
chair Gabriel to volunteer or find a volunteer per [1].
(I'm happy to volunteer as well, looks like I can svn commit the XML file.
I'll discuss/ask again on Wed)

[1] IP clearance process:
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
[2] Github issue tracking IP clearance:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159

Regards.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:

> All,
>
> Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors via
> this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159
>
> As per
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
> I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on
> Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any
> objections).
>
> Regards.
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to
>> track IP
>> > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
>> > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over
>> > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs.
>>
>> While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the
>> major contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already
>> have that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and
>> continue. It might be possible that other IPMC members might have a
>> different view on this.
>>
>> > This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
>> > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>>
>> It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a
>> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of
>> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still
>> slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I
>> would guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in
>> some cases their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person
>> states that any contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have
>> their employers permission to do so.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Justin
>
>

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Daniel B. Widdis]

> I would expect any one making total commits of 100s, 1,000s or more lines
of code major/significant.

That assumes it's their own code.  There are three contributors in the
1000s of lines range, and while these contributors have done a great
service to the project, the vast majority of those thousands of lines of
code do not represent their own intellectual property.

The top contributor appears to have added 352,925 lines of code, but most
of that is transferring code from other sources

The 16 commits [1] include:
 - transfer of cloudstack code provider from another source (4 commits:
1118 lines, 12,193 lines, 124,297 lines and 188,280 lines)
 - transfer of website docs from another source and a few commits to fix
various links
 - a makefile from another source
 - .gitignore list (hard to argue it's copyrightable)
 - An issue template (creative, but not code)
 - Typo fixes

The vast majority of the 3rd top contributor's 79,555 lines of code are a
single commit transferring 233.853 lines of code from another source [2],
much of which were later deleted when obsolete

The 6th top contributor's 19,413 lines are mostly from a single 19,378-line
commit of code from another source [3].

I do not mean to belittle the herculean effort by these individuals.  This
is a lot of work.  The project in its current form wouldn't exist without
the effort they put in.

I would be pressed to argue they have 352,925, 79,555, and 19,413 lines,
respectively, of IP for which they have legal standing to discuss the
licensing of, vs. the original license of the code they transferred.  I
would wager that the individual with the most IP in the current iteration
of the project is someone other than these three.

> I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide
documentation that shows otherwise.

Certainly this is a reasonable request, but due diligence should likely be
a review of every commit to the project, not just lines above some
arbitrary threshold, determining the license of code transferred from
elsewhere (and not the committer's opinion), eliminating non-copyrightable
contributions (whitespace, typo fixes, lists of files, URL changes), and
obtaining concurrence from anyone who has committed remaining code,
regardless of how few lines they committed.

1. Commits · xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack (github.com)

2. Merge pull request #64 from terraform-providers/svh/f-cs-4.12 ·
xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack@07febb7 (github.com)

3. vendor: github.com/hashicorp/terraform/...@v0.10.0 ·
xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack@29c9bb4

4. IP Clearance for Terraform Provider and Go SDK · Issue #5159 ·
apache/cloudstack (github.com)



On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:53 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I've been following this thread and continue to see phrases such as
> "major contributors" and "significant contributions”.
>
> That may be a bit nebulous depending on the exact contributions involved,
> but I would expect any one making total commits of 100s, 1,000s or more
> lines of code major/significant. You can see the stats for this repo here
> [1]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Dan Widdis

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

All,

Just a short update, I think we've reached out to all the contributors via
this Github issue which is also tracking the IP clearance process:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/5159

As per
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html#process
I think we should be able to start a vote on general@ shortly (say on
Monday to give these contributors traditional 72hr window to raise any
objections).

Regards.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:19 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track
> IP
> > clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
> > contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over
> > the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs.
>
> While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the major
> contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already have
> that from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and
> continue. It might be possible that other IPMC members might have a
> different view on this.
>
> > This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
> > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a
> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of
> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still
> slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I
> would guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in
> some cases their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person
> states that any contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have
> their employers permission to do so.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I've been following this thread and continue to see phrases such as "major 
> contributors" and "significant contributions”.

That may be a bit nebulous depending on the exact contributions involved, but I 
would expect any one making total commits of 100s, 1,000s or more lines of code 
major/significant. You can see the stats for this repo here [1]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors


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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Daniel Widdis]

I've been following this thread and continue to see phrases such as "major 
contributors" and "significant contributions".

Given the entire premise of the conversation here is on whether there are legal 
claims to IP, could you clarify, objectively, what defines "major" and/or 
"significant"?

On 6/22/21, 11:49 PM, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:

Hi,

> Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track 
IP
> clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
> contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over
> the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs.

While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the major 
contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already have that 
from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and continue. It 
might be possible that other IPMC members might have a different view on this.

> This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a 
Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP 
must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still 
slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I would 
guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in some cases 
their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person states that any 
contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have their employers 
permission to do so.

Kind Regards,
Justin
-
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: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track IP
> clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
> contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over
> the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs.

While having an ICLA is ideal, I think a recorded agreement from the major 
contributors is probably enough given the history here. You already have that 
from most of them. If some don’t answer then just record that and continue. It 
might be possible that other IPMC members might have a different view on this.

> This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

It does say "Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a 
Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP 
must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary “. I’m still 
slightly unclear on who the IP owners are. Sander is obviously one, but I would 
guess it’s the other 8 or so other major contributors or possibly in some cases 
their employers. Having an ICLA clears that up as the person states that any 
contributions they make they are allowed to do so and have their employers 
permission to do so.

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Thanks for the clarifications and history it useful to know all of this.

> I started, maintained and build most of both these code bases. And as far as 
> I know I'm (still) legally both the author and the owner of the IP as the 
> company I work for (for the last 12 years) has a chapter in their contract 
> that states that any open source contributions made are "owned" by the 
> employee and not the company.

That's good to know. What about the other major contributor's contributions? I 
would assume that they or their employers would own the IP?

> Probably also imortant to know, is that I initially started both these 
> projects using the Apache License, Version 2.

The MPL license was part of a commit on 6th Jun 2017, no license file existed 
before that, that I can find from a quick search anyway. Since then eight 
versions have been released (including the first 0.1 release). So I think it's 
clear to say that any code committed after the 0.1 release was under the MPL 
license.

Kind Regards,
Justin


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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Alright, I'll create a Github issue as suggested in the example to track IP
clearance with list of all people and will try to reach out to all
contributors within a limited time period and see if they can agree over
the other legal thread and submit their ICLAs. I'm not subscribed to the
legal or general@ lists so unless people copied me in or did a reply all
(incl ACS PMC) I wouldn't have got email, I'll check again what Roman may
have advised.

This however wasn't advised on the IP clearance process:
https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

I suggest this new approach be documented on the above or relevant page.
Thanks.

Regards.

On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 11:36 am Justin Mclean, 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the information and history there, that was quite helpful.
>
> My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by
> Sander (
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314=master)
> who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community
> providers and then got it eventually transferred back.
>
> From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and
> grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors.
>
>
> You would be in a a better position to judge this, but I can see 8 to 10
> people (out of the 39) that have probably made significant contributions,
> some very significant. It unclear to me if these people were contacted.
>
> I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who
> shared their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our
> best to reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major
> contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are
> advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors.
>
>
> My very first email in that thread suggested you would need ICLAs from the
> major contributors. Having an agreement via other means is probably fine,
> but not the usual process. Roman (V.P. Legal) also suggested you contact
> these contributors.
>
> The examples you've provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all
> contributors.
>
>
> Not all, but they have ICLAs from all major contributors. More importantly
> the information is in a form where it easy to see what has been provided
> which makes accepting the IP clearance an easy process.
>
> Kind Regard,
> Justin
>

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Thanks for the information and history there, that was quite helpful.

> My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by 
> Sander 
> (https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314=master
>  
> )
>  who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community 
> providers and then got it eventually transferred back.
> 
> From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and 
> grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors.

You would be in a a better position to judge this, but I can see 8 to 10 people 
(out of the 39) that have probably made significant contributions, some very 
significant. It unclear to me if these people were contacted.

> I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared 
> their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to 
> reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major contributors 
> to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are advised to get 
> ICLAs too and from all the contributors.

My very first email in that thread suggested you would need ICLAs from the 
major contributors. Having an agreement via other means is probably fine, but 
not the usual process. Roman (V.P. Legal) also suggested you contact these 
contributors.

> The examples you've provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all 
> contributors.

Not all, but they have ICLAs from all major contributors. More importantly the 
information is in a form where it easy to see what has been provided which 
makes accepting the IP clearance an easy process.

Kind Regard,
Justin

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Thanks Sander for the clarification.

Regards.

On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 11:22 am Sander van Harmelen, 
wrote:

> A, I just now see your message Rohit (it got in my spambox). But yes, I
> think the mail I've send just now is pretty much inline with your
> explanation in this mail...
>
> Sander
>
> On 23 Jun 2021, at 07:30, Rohit Yadav  wrote:
>
> 
> My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by
> Sander (
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314=master)
> who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community
> providers and then got it eventually transferred back.
>
> From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and
> grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors.
> I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared
> their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to
> reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major
> contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are
> advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors. The examples you've
> provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all contributors.
>
> Originally I did attempt to get Hashicorp (the company, mainly a manager
> and their CTO) to do the CCLA etc but they weren't interested and didnt
> want to get involved but agreed to transfer the repo back to Sander. From
> what I understand the project wasn't Hashicorp company project but was
> started by Sander, was then under their Github org but eventually archived.
> From email exchanges I had with Hashicorp it would unlikely their CTO or
> managers be suing any parties for the initiatives and in fact offered to
> work with ACS community in publishing the Terraform provider under ACS
> official registry. As far as we had inquired Hashicorp the company has no
> interest in maintaining the project any further, but users in ACS community
> need it to be supported. Sander could you confirm if I got anything wrong?
> Thanks.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 10:41 am Justin Mclean, 
> wrote:
>
>> HI,
>>
>> > Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner
>> of the codebase/repos.
>>
>> My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they
>> are probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct?
>>
>> Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I
>> assume are releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to
>> that repo were/are Hashicorp employees.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack
>> 2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
>> 3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/
>
>

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Sander van Harmelen]

Hi Justin,

The story is a bit different. I started, maintained and build most of both 
these code bases. And as far as I know I'm (still) legally both the author and 
the owner of the IP as the company I work for (for the last 12 years) has a 
chapter in their contract that states that any open source contributions made 
are "owned" by the employee and not the company.

Probably also imortant to know, is that I initially started both these projects 
using the Apache License, Version 2.

After having maintained the Terraform provider for a couple of years and having 
build up a very good relationship with HashiCorp, we decided to "move" the 
repository to a central location were (at the time, that has changed now) they 
tried to gather all providers in a single Github org to make it clear which 
providers we're officially supported.

In that Github org were both HashiCorp owned and maintained providers as well 
as community owned and maintained providers.

Again to be clear, I never signed anything to officially donate the code to 
anyone other then the software grant I send the other day to you guys.

Over time the provider was so stable that I disn't had to work on it anymore 
and HashiCorp made some tweaks every now and then mainly to add the provider to 
their CI/CD setup and to keep the Terraform SDK (plugin) used by the provider 
up to date.

In that process the license has also been changed. But again I have never 
concented to that (while I also didn't mind, orherwise I've would have 
protested against it of course). So it very questionable which of the 
contributers actually contributed during the presence of the Mozille license 
(could of course be found using sone git foo).

Now as I said the code base is quite stale for a few years now and since I 
don't use CloudStack anymore and HashiCorp doesn't have anyone working for them 
with CloudStack knowledge, they archived the repo as there was no active 
maintainer anymore.

At this point someone (probably Rohid) started something to revive the provider 
and move it's ownership and code to Apache. As HashCorp didn't want to change 
the license back because of legal stuff for them, they approached me and asked 
if I could be a man-in-the-middle to help give the provider a second life.

I agreed and with that HashiCorp transferred the repo bak to me again. I 
changed the license back and stepped through the hoops to offer it to Apache.

Hope this helps to resolve this discussion.

Sander

On 23 Jun 2021, at 07:12, Justin Mclean  wrote:

HI,

> Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner of 
> the codebase/repos.

My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they are 
probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct?

Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I assume are 
releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to that repo 
were/are Hashicorp employees.

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack
2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Sander van Harmelen]

A, I just now see your message Rohit (it got in my spambox). But yes, I think 
the mail I've send just now is pretty much inline with your explanation in this 
mail...

Sander

On 23 Jun 2021, at 07:30, Rohit Yadav  wrote:


My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by 
Sander 
(https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314=master)
 who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community 
providers and then got it eventually transferred back.

From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and 
grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors. 
I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared 
their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to 
reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major contributors 
to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are advised to get ICLAs 
too and from all the contributors. The examples you've provided don't have 
ICLAs or agreements from all contributors.

Originally I did attempt to get Hashicorp (the company, mainly a manager and 
their CTO) to do the CCLA etc but they weren't interested and didnt want to get 
involved but agreed to transfer the repo back to Sander. From what I understand 
the project wasn't Hashicorp company project but was started by Sander, was 
then under their Github org but eventually archived. From email exchanges I had 
with Hashicorp it would unlikely their CTO or managers be suing any parties for 
the initiatives and in fact offered to work with ACS community in publishing 
the Terraform provider under ACS official registry. As far as we had inquired 
Hashicorp the company has no interest in maintaining the project any further, 
but users in ACS community need it to be supported. Sander could you confirm if 
I got anything wrong? Thanks.

Regards. 

On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 10:41 am Justin Mclean,  wrote:
> HI,
> 
> > Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner of 
> > the codebase/repos.
> 
> My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they are 
> probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct?
> 
> Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I assume 
> are releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to that 
> repo were/are Hashicorp employees.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
> 
> 1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> 2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> 3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

My understanding is the plugin was originally started as a repo or work by
Sander (
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commits/master?after=5e7ccfea50810303a6b205084fb6f0b3eade33ca+314=master)
who contributed it to the Hashicorp Github org like many other community
providers and then got it eventually transferred back.

>From ACS PMC point of view we're going to take the risk as we've ICLA and
grants from Sander and agreements over email from all the top contributors.
I've also gotten emails from other participants including Sander who shared
their frustration, we've jumped through all the hoops and done our best to
reach so far, I think Justin you had advised us to get all major
contributors to agree in the other legal thread but now suddenly we are
advised to get ICLAs too and from all the contributors. The examples you've
provided don't have ICLAs or agreements from all contributors.

Originally I did attempt to get Hashicorp (the company, mainly a manager
and their CTO) to do the CCLA etc but they weren't interested and didnt
want to get involved but agreed to transfer the repo back to Sander. From
what I understand the project wasn't Hashicorp company project but was
started by Sander, was then under their Github org but eventually archived.
>From email exchanges I had with Hashicorp it would unlikely their CTO or
managers be suing any parties for the initiatives and in fact offered to
work with ACS community in publishing the Terraform provider under ACS
official registry. As far as we had inquired Hashicorp the company has no
interest in maintaining the project any further, but users in ACS community
need it to be supported. Sander could you confirm if I got anything wrong?
Thanks.

Regards.

On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 10:41 am Justin Mclean, 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner
> of the codebase/repos.
>
> My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they
> are probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct?
>
> Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I assume
> are releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to that
> repo were/are Hashicorp employees.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> 2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> 3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

> Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner of 
> the codebase/repos.

My understanding was the work was carried out in their repo and that they are 
probably the IP owner of the codebase. Is that correct?

Also, currently [1] redirects to [2], I can see they host of what I assume are 
releases of the software [3] and I can see major contributors to that repo 
were/are Hashicorp employees.

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. http://github.com/hashicorp/terraform-provider-cloudstack
2. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
3. https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform-provider-cloudstack/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Justin why do we need Hashicorp? They are not involved or are the owner of
the codebase/repos.

Regards.

On Wed, 23 Jun, 2021, 4:56 am Justin Mclean, 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As far as I know this is the situation. If anyone has any information to
> add please do so.
> - We have no CCLA or grant from Hashicorp, who probably own the IP. It
> would be nice to have clarity on who actually does own the IP.
> - We have one ICLA from a major contributor who has also filled in a
> software grant. That grant doesn't mention Hashicorp.
> - We have agreement from some of the major contributors but not all. It is
> unknown if these contributors have signed ICLAs.
> - We have a code base who license has been changed without all
> contributors agreeing. That license was incompatible with the ASF one.
>
> The above situation makes me feel unconformable and I think most would
> agree that this is highly unusual as far as code donations go.
>
> Compare this to say how this project handled IP clearance. [1][2]
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-samples/issues/41
> 2. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-spring-boot-project/issues/428

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

As far as I know this is the situation. If anyone has any information to add 
please do so.
- We have no CCLA or grant from Hashicorp, who probably own the IP. It would be 
nice to have clarity on who actually does own the IP.
- We have one ICLA from a major contributor who has also filled in a software 
grant. That grant doesn't mention Hashicorp.
- We have agreement from some of the major contributors but not all. It is 
unknown if these contributors have signed ICLAs.
- We have a code base who license has been changed without all contributors 
agreeing. That license was incompatible with the ASF one.

The above situation makes me feel unconformable and I think most would agree 
that this is highly unusual as far as code donations go.

Compare this to say how this project handled IP clearance. [1][2]

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-samples/issues/41
2. https://github.com/apache/dubbo-spring-boot-project/issues/428
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Sander van Harmelen]

Hi Justin,

I'm sorry, I just hit "reply-all" as I have no idea what's a private list and 
what's not.

But I'll stop mailing...

Sander

On 22 Jun 2021, at 17:08, Sander van Harmelen  wrote:

But we are constantly discussing that particular repo right? It's the aothet 
one that was just added.

Sander

On 22 Jun 2021, at 16:05, Justin Mclean  wrote:

HI,

> The license didn’t change for the other repo. It has always been Apache 
> License, Version 2. Not sure if that matters?

The license for that repo I mentioned has changed in the last couple of days, 
it was originally Mozilla Public License Version 2.0. [1] Yes this matters as 
the Mozilla Public License is not compatible with the Apache license and cannot 
be included in an ASF source release. Even if it was under the Apache license 
it still matters as there is a difference to 3rd party code under an Apache 
license and ASF code.

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. 
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/a95d3f28e3db503526a1d59bdb3e021ad50a0138#diff-c693279643b8cd5d248172d9c22cb7cf4ed163a3c98c8a3f69c2717edd3eacb7



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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Sander van Harmelen]

But we are constantly discussing that particular repo right? It's the aothet 
one that was just added.

Sander

On 22 Jun 2021, at 16:05, Justin Mclean  wrote:

HI,

> The license didn’t change for the other repo. It has always been Apache 
> License, Version 2. Not sure if that matters?

The license for that repo I mentioned has changed in the last couple of days, 
it was originally Mozilla Public License Version 2.0. [1] Yes this matters as 
the Mozilla Public License is not compatible with the Apache license and cannot 
be included in an ASF source release. Even if it was under the Apache license 
it still matters as there is a difference to 3rd party code under an Apache 
license and ASF code.

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. 
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/a95d3f28e3db503526a1d59bdb3e021ad50a0138#diff-c693279643b8cd5d248172d9c22cb7cf4ed163a3c98c8a3f69c2717edd3eacb7



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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Many thanks Dave for replying.

Justin - thanks for replying. I think Dave has answered most of the
questions. The reason this thread is copied to both ACS PMC and general@ is
because this was intended as a starting point for ACS PMC and it was not
clear to me how the IP clearance process works. The IP clearance wiki is
under incubator but the ACS project is not in incubator. Hope you
understand the underlying premise requires the discussion to be held
publicly (i.e. understand the process, get an officer or understand how to
do it wrt our case) - I think there is nothing that needs to be discussed
in secrecy.

Again thanks all, I think I've received all the help and guidance I need
and we got an IP clearance officer/ASF member volunteer (Paul).

I agree with Dave's summary - the ACS PMC has voted and agreed with the
initiative, all major contributors have agreed too on the relicensing and
initiative, Sander has already re-licensed the codebases and submitted ICLA
and software grants doc. The ASF secretary has also acknowledged Sander's
ICLA, and now we're just waiting for their grants acknowledgement because
Paul can start the vote on general@.

(Pl correct/advise if we need to do anything else or missed anything else,
thanks)

Regards.


Regards.

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:57 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
>
> This IPMC member is finding this whole discussion circular.
>
> I’m including this link [1] from the discussion on legal-discuss@ which
> did include replies from other contributors.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9d0eab51653bfa6ead4b61e2ea0a7b435c0d3195ff1ed2ae3fdeb8f0%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> IMO - This is spot on and the most that is required here is that:
>
> (a) The Cloudstack PMC wants to include the software, and understands the
> risk in the rare and unlikely case that any of the original contributors
> wants to deny use. If that happens then the PMC will handle the situation
> as all PMCs must. If there is a failure there then that is a Board
> situation.
> (b) A SGA has been provided which indicates that Hashicorp considered that
> all license and ownership issues are moot. OR - Sander’s ICLA and now
> current holding of the software.
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please stop mixing public and private lists. Feel free to forward any
> email to the relevant private list but don’t mix them as it's very easy for
> something that should only appear on a private list to become public.
> >
> >> The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main
> author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and
> all top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative
> including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now).
> >
> > There are more than 5 major contributors and I’m not sure that your top
> 5 contributors have actually agreed. Please provide documentations that
> shows this.
>
> If you followed the thread above:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3a96f1220393409c3ca2ce619786fb23fdac3b334a00584d26cf1ecd%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7e9b5767102ddfa3b871f6252d4fa8ef5e6ff8c8af044b314991682a%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r522c7ef78f19bd60f6f3c156e607e4b655e7683d7f7f176731b9d617%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r43ba1d098675bb48e4fed80e34b2123364e9a1e3bbf98223bfda2ad7%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
>
>
> >
> > If you look at the IP clearance documentation it states "Either an
> Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software Grant. All
> authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign one of
> the three documents and send to secretary”
> >
> > Has this been done?
>
> Justin - you seem to be asserting ownership rights where there may be none.
>
>
> >
> >> I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but
> feel free to advise:
> >> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> >> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstac
> >
> > Who owns the IP? Just because Sander is the original author of some of
> the code doesn't mean he owns the IP. If he did the work while he was
> employed by Hashicorp (and I don't know if this was the case) it’s likely
> they own the IP not him, but his employment contract may have stated
> something else. Again the same applies for the other contributors.
>
> We have no need to see employment contracts. Since Hashicorp transferred
> the project to Sander then he has the rights AFAICT.
>
> >
> > A further complication is the code wasn’t under a license that is
> compatible with the Apache license.
> >
> > I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide
> documentation that shows otherwise.
>
> I think that this IP Clearance will need an actual vote (as I don’t think
> it will be lazy consensus.)
>
> All The Best,
> Dave
>
>
> 

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

This IPMC member is finding this whole discussion circular.

I’m including this link [1] from the discussion on legal-discuss@ which did 
include replies from other contributors. 

[1] 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9d0eab51653bfa6ead4b61e2ea0a7b435c0d3195ff1ed2ae3fdeb8f0%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E

IMO - This is spot on and the most that is required here is that:

(a) The Cloudstack PMC wants to include the software, and understands the risk 
in the rare and unlikely case that any of the original contributors wants to 
deny use. If that happens then the PMC will handle the situation as all PMCs 
must. If there is a failure there then that is a Board situation.
(b) A SGA has been provided which indicates that Hashicorp considered that all 
license and ownership issues are moot. OR - Sander’s ICLA and now current 
holding of the software.



> On Jun 22, 2021, at 7:56 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Please stop mixing public and private lists. Feel free to forward any email 
> to the relevant private list but don’t mix them as it's very easy for 
> something that should only appear on a private list to become public.
> 
>> The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main 
>> author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and all 
>> top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative 
>> including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now).
> 
> There are more than 5 major contributors and I’m not sure that your top 5 
> contributors have actually agreed. Please provide documentations that shows 
> this. 

If you followed the thread above:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3a96f1220393409c3ca2ce619786fb23fdac3b334a00584d26cf1ecd%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7e9b5767102ddfa3b871f6252d4fa8ef5e6ff8c8af044b314991682a%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r522c7ef78f19bd60f6f3c156e607e4b655e7683d7f7f176731b9d617%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r43ba1d098675bb48e4fed80e34b2123364e9a1e3bbf98223bfda2ad7%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E


> 
> If you look at the IP clearance documentation it states "Either an Individual 
> CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software Grant. All authors must sign 
> an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign one of the three documents 
> and send to secretary” 
> 
> Has this been done?

Justin - you seem to be asserting ownership rights where there may be none.


> 
>> I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but feel 
>> free to advise:
>> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
>> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstac
> 
> Who owns the IP? Just because Sander is the original author of some of the 
> code doesn't mean he owns the IP. If he did the work while he was employed by 
> Hashicorp (and I don't know if this was the case) it’s likely they own the IP 
> not him, but his employment contract may have stated something else. Again 
> the same applies for the other contributors.

We have no need to see employment contracts. Since Hashicorp transferred the 
project to Sander then he has the rights AFAICT.

> 
> A further complication is the code wasn’t under a license that is compatible 
> with the Apache license. 
> 
> I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide 
> documentation that shows otherwise.

I think that this IP Clearance will need an actual vote (as I don’t think it 
will be lazy consensus.)

All The Best,
Dave


> 
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
> -
> 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: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Please stop mixing public and private lists. Feel free to forward any email to 
the relevant private list but don’t mix them as it's very easy for something 
that should only appear on a private list to become public.

> The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main 
> author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and all 
> top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative including 
> re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now).

There are more than 5 major contributors and I’m not sure that your top 5 
contributors have actually agreed. Please provide documentations that shows 
this. 

If you look at the IP clearance documentation it states "Either an Individual 
CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software Grant. All authors must sign an 
Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign one of the three documents and 
send to secretary” 

Has this been done?

> I don't see why we need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but feel free 
> to advise:
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstac

Who owns the IP? Just because Sander is the original author of some of the code 
doesn't mean he owns the IP. If he did the work while he was employed by 
Hashicorp (and I don't know if this was the case) it’s likely they own the IP 
not him, but his employment contract may have stated something else. Again the 
same applies for the other contributors.

A further complication is the code wasn’t under a license that is compatible 
with the Apache license. 

I’m not sure that due diligence has been done here, please provide 
documentation that shows otherwise.

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Justin,

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 7:22 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
> > and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to
> priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for
> clearance to be checked.
> > Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1.
>
> Also I’m not 100% that this is valid as it only lists Sander van Harmelen
> as the IP owner, you would need permission from Hashicorp right?
>

The codebases are under Sander's control who also was the original/main
author who had maintained the repo under the 'hashicorp' Github org, and
all top 5 contributors (including Sander) have agreed to the initiative
including re-licensing under APLv2 (already done now). I don't see why we
need permission from Hashicorp (the company) but feel free to advise:
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack

Regards.


> Kind Regards,
> Justin

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

> The license didn’t change for the other repo. It has always been Apache 
> License, Version 2. Not sure if that matters?

The license for that repo I mentioned has changed in the last couple of days, 
it was originally Mozilla Public License Version 2.0. [1] Yes this matters as 
the Mozilla Public License is not compatible with the Apache license and cannot 
be included in an ASF source release. Even if it was under the Apache license 
it still matters as there is a difference to 3rd party code under an Apache 
license and ASF code.

Kind Regards,
Justin

1. 
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack/commit/a95d3f28e3db503526a1d59bdb3e021ad50a0138#diff-c693279643b8cd5d248172d9c22cb7cf4ed163a3c98c8a3f69c2717edd3eacb7


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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Sander van Harmelen]

Hi Justin,

The license didn’t change for the other repo. It has always been Apache 
License, Version 2. Not sure if that matters?

Sander

On 22 Jun 2021, at 14:45, Justin Mclean  wrote:

HI,

Again I request that you please don’t mix private and public channels.

IMO More than just a SGA is needed here, there are several major contributors 
that AFAIK they have not been contacted and there are unanswered questions 
about this IP clearance/donation. Originally only one repo was discussed, now 
there is two, where did this extra repo come from? One has 39 contributors the 
other 13, which of those contributors have been contacted and which have signed 
ICLAs? Which of those contributors have agreed to the license change? This all 
need to be documented in order for the IP clearance to be accepted.

And this states [1] that it has already moved to the ASF, why does it say that 
when IP clearance has not been sorted?

Kind Regards.
Justin

1. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack


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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance: 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
> and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to 
> priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for clearance 
> to be checked.
> Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1.

Also I’m not 100% that this is valid as it only lists Sander van Harmelen as 
the IP owner, you would need permission from Hashicorp right?

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

Again I request that you please don’t mix private and public channels.

IMO More than just a SGA is needed here, there are several major contributors 
that AFAIK they have not been contacted and there are unanswered questions 
about this IP clearance/donation. Originally only one repo was discussed, now 
there is two, where did this extra repo come from? One has 39 contributors the 
other 13, which of those contributors have been contacted and which have signed 
ICLAs? Which of those contributors have agreed to the license change? This all 
need to be documented in order for the IP clearance to be accepted.

And this states [1] that it has already moved to the ASF, why does it say that 
when IP clearance has not been sorted?

Kind Regards.
Justin

1. https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Paul, ACS PMC /cc general@incubator, Sander,

(attempt #2 - the previous email was dropped due to larger grants PDF
attachment size)

Following the process described on IP clearance [1], we've received
acknowledgement Sander's ICLA and since you're volunteering I've committed
the outline XML here with you stated as the IP clearance ASF member/officer:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml

According to [1] we now need to wait for the ASF secretary to acknowledge
the software grants (Sander has submitted a signed PDF, attached):
"the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided a copy of
the grant or CCLA in any case... Note: the grant form must be acknowledged
before continuing. "

Next steps:

1. We wait for secretary@ ASF to acknowledge Sander's grant.

2. Paul to review the re-licensed codebase per the grants and IP clearance
outline:
https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack

3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to
priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for clearance
to be checked.
Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1.

4. Post a [RESULT] to close the thread and let the ACS project/PMC know
that the code has been cleared for import.

5. Rohit to help import the codebase to:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go
... and Sander to archive the source repositories.

Let me know if I missed anything, thanks.

[1] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

Regards.

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:26 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:

> Paul, ACS PMC /cc general@incubator, Sander,
>
> Following the process described on IP clearance [1], we've received
> acknowledgement Sander's ICLA and since you're volunteering I've committed
> the outline XML here with you stated as the IP clearance ASF member/officer:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
>
> According to [1] we now need to wait for the ASF secretary to acknowledge
> the software grants (Sander has submitted a signed PDF, attached):
> "the officer should be the ASF Secretary, who must be provided a copy of
> the grant or CCLA in any case... Note: the grant form must be acknowledged
> before continuing. "
>
> Next steps:
>
> 1. We wait for secretary@ ASF to acknowledge Sander's grant.
>
> 2. Paul to review the re-licensed codebase per the grants and IP clearance
> outline:
> https://github.com/xanzy/terraform-provider-cloudstack
> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
>
> 3. Paul to update and commit the IP clearance:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/cloudstack-terraform.xml
> and send an email to general@incubator (/cc to
> priv...@cloudstack.apache.org) prefixed [IP CLEARANCE] asking for
> clearance to be checked.
> Sign off is by lazy consensus so wait at least 72 hours for a -1.
>
> 4. Post a [RESULT] to close the thread and let the ACS project/PMC know
> that the code has been cleared for import.
>
> 5. Rohit to help import the codebase to:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-terraform-provider
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-go
> ... and Sander to archive the source repositories.
>
> Let me know if I missed anything, thanks.
>
> [1] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> Regards.
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:16 PM Rohit Yadav  wrote:
> >
> > All, Sander has confirmed sending the signed software grants PDF but I
> don't see it. Does the PMC list filter emails with attachments? Any PMC
> able to see his email?
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jun, 2021, 5:42 pm Rohit Yadav,  wrote:
> >>
> >> Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per
> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors.
> The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author
> Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet.
> >>
> >> Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and
> send the software grants form (
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) to ACS PMC. He has
> already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the codebase here:
> (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags on latest branch
> both owned by Sander)
> >>
> >> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack (the
> main terraform provider)
> >> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
> >>
> >> I've asked him to specify both repos under Exhibit A of
> software-grants. I'll check again and then ask you Paul or Gabriel whoever
> can help with IP clearance submission which requires I think to 

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

All, Sander has confirmed sending the signed software grants PDF but I
don't see it. Does the PMC list filter emails with attachments? Any PMC
able to see his email?

Regards.

On Mon, 21 Jun, 2021, 5:42 pm Rohit Yadav,  wrote:

> Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per
> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors.
> The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author
> Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet.
>
> Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and send
> the software grants form (
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) to ACS PMC. He has
> already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the codebase here:
> (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags on latest branch
> both owned by Sander)
>
> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack (the main
> terraform provider)
> https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack
>
> I've asked him to specify both repos under Exhibit A of software-grants.
> I'll check again and then ask you Paul or Gabriel whoever can help with IP
> clearance submission which requires I think to check the donated codebases
> and create an XML file at:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/
> (older cloudstack related xmls can be used as examples/references)
>
> Regards.
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Paul Angus 
> wrote:
>
>> @Rohit Yadav 
>>
>>
>>
>> I can do it as a Member or Gabriel can do it as an officer.
>>
>>
>>
>> As per the IP clearance page you reference, do you have the software
>> grant ready to go?
>>
>>
>>
>> “A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either be
>> done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software Grant
>> Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>> secret...@apache.org”
>>
>>
>>
>> Note: “Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a
>> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of
>> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary (reference
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
>> ).”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Angus
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rohit Yadav 
>> *Sent:* 21 June 2021 10:25
>> *To:*  ;
>> general@incubator.apache.org
>> *Subject:* IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under
>> ACS PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the
>> same has already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa
>>
>> As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to
>> follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already
>> been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred
>> by Hashicorp (
>> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all
>> major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record
>> (see separate thread to ACS PMC).
>>
>> As part of IP clearance (
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it
>> says:
>>
>> "IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a
>> Member of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact
>> your project chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma
>> is also required. Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not
>> have it."
>>
>> Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our
>> chair Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP
>> clearance officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which
>> may I request general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per
> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors.

Looking at who has contributed the project I think it needs a little more than 
those five and I’m not 100% sure who those five are. Have you for instance got 
permission from contributors such as Sander van Harmelen, Jeroen de Korte, Ben 
Vickers or Bart van der Schans?

I can see others who have contributed as well who would not be in the top five, 
that needs to be accounted for. I think we need a list of ICLAs/CCLAs that 
covers all contributors to the project

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

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Rohit Yadav]

Justin - yes all top 5 major contributors have agreed for it per
https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack/graphs/contributors.
The repository was transferred by Hashicorp to the main/original author
Sander, it's not donated/transferred to the project yet.

Paul - thanks for volunteering. I've asked Sander (in cc) to scan and send
the software grants form (https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt)
to ACS PMC. He has already submitted ICLA to secretary@ and relicensed the
codebase here: (both repos re-licensed under APLv2 with specific git tags
on latest branch both owned by Sander)

https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack (the main
terraform provider)
https://github.com/xanzy/go-cloudstack

I've asked him to specify both repos under Exhibit A of software-grants.
I'll check again and then ask you Paul or Gabriel whoever can help with IP
clearance submission which requires I think to check the donated codebases
and create an XML file at:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearance/
(older cloudstack related xmls can be used as examples/references)

Regards.

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Paul Angus 
wrote:

> @Rohit Yadav 
>
>
>
> I can do it as a Member or Gabriel can do it as an officer.
>
>
>
> As per the IP clearance page you reference, do you have the software grant
> ready to go?
>
>
>
> “A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either be
> done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software Grant
> Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
> secret...@apache.org”
>
>
>
> Note: “Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a
> Software Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of
> IP must sign one of the three documents and send to secretary (reference
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
> ).”
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
>
> *From:* Rohit Yadav 
> *Sent:* 21 June 2021 10:25
> *To:*  ;
> general@incubator.apache.org
> *Subject:* IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform
>
>
>
> All,
>
> We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under
> ACS PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the
> same has already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa
>
> As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to
> follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already
> been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred
> by Hashicorp (
> https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all
> major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record
> (see separate thread to ACS PMC).
>
> As part of IP clearance (
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it
> says:
>
> "IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a Member
> of the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact your
> project chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma is
> also required. Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not
> have it."
>
> Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our
> chair Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP
> clearance officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which
> may I request general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks.
>
>
> Regards.
>

RE: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Paul Angus]

@Rohit Yadav

I can do it as a Member or Gabriel can do it as an officer.

As per the IP clearance page you reference, do you have the software grant 
ready to go?

“A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either be done by 
the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software Grant Agreement. The 
completed and signed grant must be emailed to 
secret...@apache.org”

Note: “Either an Individual CLA or Corporate CLA is preferred to a Software 
Grant. All authors must sign an Individual CLA; or all owners of IP must sign 
one of the three documents and send to secretary (reference 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas).”


Kind regards

Paul Angus

From: Rohit Yadav 
Sent: 21 June 2021 10:25
To:  ; 
general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

All,

We're in the process of accepting the Terraform provider codebase under ACS 
PMC. The ACS PMC has already accepted the initiative and a vote on the same has 
already passed: https://markmail.org/message/g4prb25g7wakbifa

As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to follow 
the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already been in touch 
with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred by Hashicorp 
(https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack) and all major 
contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on record (see 
separate thread to ACS PMC).

As part of IP clearance 
(https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html) it says:
"IP Clearance processing must be executed either by an Officer or a Member of 
the ASF. If you are not an Officer or a Member, please contact your project 
chair who will find an appropriate volunteer. Incubator karma is also required. 
Please request karma from the incubator pmc if you do not have it."

Therefore, is there anybody on the ACS PMC list (maybe Sebastien? or our chair 
Gabriel to help find?) who can help. I can volunteer too to be the IP clearance 
officer but I don't think I've the incubator karma - for which may I request 
general@incubator how to be granted the same. Thanks.

Regards.

Re: IP clearance officer for accepting Terraform

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> As the next step, I was advised by ASF legal and others in the list to
> follow the IP clearance process for accepting the codebase. I've already
> been in touch with Sander who currently has got the repository transferred
> by Hashicorp (https://github.com/svanharmelen/terraform-provider-cloudstack)
> and all major contributors have agreed to codebase relicensing to APLv2 on
> record (see separate thread to ACS PMC).

Looking at the conversation I’m not sure that all major contributors have 
agreed to relicensed the codebase. I’m not 100% what you mean by “transferred” 
above, but the repository should not have been transferred before IP clearance 
has been complete. 

I would also try not to mix public and private lists.

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