Re: Becoming a Apache comiter - signed iCLA for the NetBeans project

[Craig Russell]

Hi Jan,

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 7:59 AM, Jan Pirek  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> based on the procedure in the 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/How+to+Participate

Could you please tell us what part of that page you are referencing? As far as 
I can see, you are not listed as an original committer.

Regards,

Craig

> , I am sending you signed iCLA required to become a commiter to the NetBeans 
> project.
> 
> Jiri Kovalsky CC'ed here can confirm my identity if needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> jan
> 
> -- 
> Jan Pirek
> Visual Builder Cloud Service
> Oracle
> 
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [legal] [mentors] Incorporating dendencies into the final JAR

[Craig Russell]

> On Oct 9, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> For websvc.saas.api/ I see that 2 xsd files, which have the original GPL w/
> CPE + CDDL NetBeans dual license have been moved into an external
> dependency, external/websvc-saas-api-external-resources.zip.

I'm having trouble parsing "have been moved".

Were these files part of the donation? Who/what/when moved them to the .zip?

If they were part of the donation, they can be moved manually into 
src/org/netbeans/modules/websvc/saas/model, the license changed, and the build 
modified to remove the unzip command.

Craig
> 
> Then, during the build they are copied back into src/
> https://github.com/emilianbold/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/websvc.saas.api/build.xml#L36
> 
>>  dest="src/org/netbeans/modules/websvc/saas/model"/>
> 
> Two things:
> 
> * why couldn't these two XSD files be donated too? The seem standard Oracle
> / Sun / NetBeans code.
> 
> * assuming Apache elects CDDL (which it has to), what is the legal impact
> on the final resulting JAR which incorporates this "dependency". I assume
> it's fine, but the whole construct is unexpected.
> 
> --emi

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: Heads up: Oracle internal urls (& git repos?) for unit tests

[Craig Russell]

Setting up a private git repo for the purpose of testing should be possible by 
discussing the problem with infra.

I'd suggest opening an INFRA JIRA ticket with lots of detail as to what is 
needed, e.g. 

What are the properties of this git repo? 

Who should administer it? 

Craig

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Antonio  wrote:
> 
> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-80
> 
> A git repository with a dummy user & private key are required for the tests 
> to succeed. I don't think it's a good idea to have a public repo available 
> (with a private key!). So maybe there're some internal Apache repositories 
> available for these scenarios.
> 
> Cheers,
> Antonio
> 
> 
> On 08/10/17 09:51, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>> Yes, though not sure what those should be changed to.
>> Any ideas?
>> Gj
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Antonio  wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> libs.git unit tests point to Oracle internal urls (see [1]).
>>> 
>>> Would we want to change these urls? Should I open an issue for this?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Antonio
>>> 
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/
>>> libs.git/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/libs/git/jgit/ConnectionTest.java
>>> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: [GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #74: [NETBEANS-54] Module Review terminal

[Craig Russell]

Hi,

IMO, you could do any of these:

1. ship it with the # comment lines as it is now
2. remove the # lines and add the file to rat excludes (no significant ip here)
3. use the "short form" license header

Whatever is easiest and most like treatment of other such files.

Craig

> On Oct 7, 2017, at 2:26 PM, junichi11  wrote:
> 
> Github user junichi11 commented on the issue:
> 
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/74
> 
>Yes, probably, "#" signs are not needed. I used them because I thought 
> that the format should be unified. 
>It is already used in o.n.swing.tabcontrol/readme.txt[1].
> 
>[1] 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/o.n.swing.tabcontrol/readme.txt
> 
> 
> ---

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Questions on netbeans files

[Craig Russell]

To all module reviewers:

If you have questions/comments on a specific file, it will help me greatly if 
you include the git url to the file in question. That way, folks like me who 
are not immersed in the code can quickly see what you are talking about. With 
just the file name, it is just not possible for me (or probably most mentors) 
to join the discussion.

Thanks,

Craig

> On Oct 7, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> 
> How interesting
> jshell.support/src/org/netbeans/modules/jshell/tool/Feedback.java is
> GPL with Class Path Exception but not CDDL.
> 
> --emi

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: Portions Copyright 2005-2006 Andrei Badea

[Craig Russell]

For the record, there is no paperwork from Andrei Badea. But Gj is right. If he 
was a Sun/Oracle employee at the time, the grant covers it.

Craig

> On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:49 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> No worries, he was an Oracle employee when he committed that code and hence
> the code belonged to Oracle.
> 
> Gj
> 
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 15:47, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> 
>> I'll leave somebody from Oracle as Oracle employed afaik Andrei Badea.
>> 
>> 
>> --emi
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, change it.
>>> 
>>> Gj
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 14:50, Emilian Bold 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 jumpto/ module has a few files with
 
 -The Original Software is the Accelerators module.
> -The Initial Developer of the Original Software is Andrei Badea.
> -Portions Copyright 2005-2006 Andrei Badea.
> -All Rights Reserved.
 
 
 Can we change it? Does Andrei Badea have the relevant paperwork with
 Apache?
 
 --emi
 
>>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Hello

[Craig Russell]

Hi,

You might find this of value: https://netbeans.org/community/lists/index.html

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 30, 2017, at 5:45 PM, William Beebe  wrote:
> 
> I'm interested in following this mailing list.

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Thirsty Bear tomorrow?

[Craig Russell]

Hi,

I've got a calendar event for tomorrow at 7PM at the Thirsty Bear. But I cannot 
find anything to support this.
Is anyone else going?

Craig

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: Clarity needed -- adjusting the license headers

[Craig Russell]

Hi Ate,

> On Sep 12, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Ate Douma  wrote:
>  1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, 
> the
> copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
>   a. remove such notices, or
>   b. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project
>  release, or
>   c. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
>  relocation of the notices.
> 
> Now, in this case IMO the *SGA* (not the CCLA, which only applies for 
> new/future
> code contributions) covers case c., e.g. provides the written permission for 
> the
> ASF to remove/relocate the Oracle copyright notices.

My understanding is that there is no distinction made between an independent 
SGA and a CCLA with Schedule B. They both grant the same rights to Apache.

Craig

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Checking the headers process

[Craig Russell]

Hi Jarda,

Good job. Integrating RAT into the build/CI process is exactly what we 
(incubator) like to see. 

Adding files that have no IP to the RAT exclude list is the right thing to do. 
Probably manifest files will have the same treatment.

Craig

> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jaroslav Tulach  
> wrote:
> 
> On středa 6. září 2017 10:39:03 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
>> 
>>  wrote:
>>> ...3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf,
>>> *.form as I argued in other email) have the Apache license
>> 
>> Note that
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__creadur.apache.org_rat
>> _=DwIBaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBB
>> lFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk=jE_4oPC-6gaq8eLsIo3NQShvxWFtCHYuqc3z521KqkE=A
>> D30hOlS-i9up2yBAY7V_iLF7xAZmXx6KkRgJ-n24-s=  is the standard Apache tool
>> for this.
>> 
>> It does allow for exclusions in its configuration file - best is to
>> make that check part of the release build.
> 
> Thanks for the pointer Bernard.
> I've integrated rat-maven-plugin into the build:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git;a=blobdiff;f=pom.xml;h=e9e1d2a38e4d98d1b5a14b9743e066c55d02f49f;hp=0bbcdce26f38805b16e6dcf53f62f01c03ccacb9;hb=0f2bc8fb39482d6915c6b98c22d40ffaa553e34f;hpb=7c56cda29114f6dc9b09b4d42db4a8b0d2398e6a
> 
> All files in the html4j repository are clean from Apache perspective now, I 
> assume.
> -jt
> 
> PS: I had to exclude *.sigtest files but as they are automatically generated, 
> I 
> labeled them as having "no degree of creativity".
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit

[Craig Russell]

Hi,

Resolving this issue is important for later but not important to the present 
task of importing the donated files.

I'm not familiar enough with the work flow for .form files which makes this 
thread impossible for me to follow.

The goal is to have the .form files contain an Apache header when distributing 
the project. Manually adding the header seems awkward at best.

The tool creates a .form files. What exactly is the process? Else thread I 
recall it was said that non-Apache-licensed .form files should also be 
supported. So always adding the Apache header is clearly inappropriate.

If I understood better the process for creating and editing the .form files I 
could make some suggestions.

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Wade Chandler  wrote:
> 
> Either way, I think doing what is suggested in these couple comments, and 
> what Jarda is saying, are orthogonal. I feel we should take it as it is at 
> the moment, as Jarda suggested, and if it isn’t supported, it isn’t. There is 
> a license file for the project as a whole, and there are files in the Java 
> files one must have for the form file to have any meaning any ways. The rest, 
> I suggest is a new thread and a Jira issue for a feature; IMHO. Otherwise the 
> thread will get convoluted.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Wade
> 
> 
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:26, Michael Nascimento  wrote:
>> 
>> Jan,
>> 
>> The idea would be to add the license only if it's configured for the
>> project.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
 
> For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
> -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
> -manually add the headers to the form files
> -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
> form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header
>>> manually
> for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
> 
> (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
 on
> each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
> 
 
 If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more
>>> often,
 they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files
>>> too.
 It'd be painful do it manually.
 
>>> 
>>> If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
>>> created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
>>> through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
>>> be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
>>> 
>>> If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
>>> issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
>>> license headers for forms).
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> 
 
 And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But
>>> as
 said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
 with the policy.
 
 Regards,
 Michael
 
>>> 
> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit

[Craig Russell]

Hi Michael,

This should be resolved for the future. I agree it's not going to affect the 
initial code import. But we do need to resolve it by the time a release is 
made. It may be that all we need is something like "This file is licensed under 
the same terms as the similarly named .java file" or somewhat. 

The reason we need to resolve it is to remove ambiguity for downstream 
consumers of a future release. 

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Michael Nascimento <mist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding this, for the very initial contribution, adding fixed headers
> should do the trick. The problem is as we evolve the code base. So I'm not
> saying the ticket is unnecessary, just not a blocker for the donation to be
> "untangled".
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> 
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Craig Russell <apache@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to discuss
>> how to license .form files.
>> 
>> I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith <neilcsmith@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mist...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
>>>> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
>>>> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
>>>> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers
>> in
>>>> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to
>> generate
>>>> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for
>> the
>>> future! ;-)
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Neil
>>> --
>>> Neil C Smith
>>> Artist & Technologist
>>> www.neilcsmith.net
>>> 
>>> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
>> 
>> Craig L Russell
>> c...@apache.org
>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit

[Craig Russell]

Hi,

I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to discuss how to 
license .form files.

I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.

Craig

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento  wrote:
> 
>> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
>> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
>> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
>> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers in
>> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to generate
>> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
>> 
>> 
> To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for the
> future! ;-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Neil
> -- 
> Neil C Smith
> Artist & Technologist
> www.neilcsmith.net
> 
> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit

[Craig Russell]

I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.

There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git repository of 
which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other 101 files? see 
below.

This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list of 644 
files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place to start.

I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.

It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually go 
through all the files and verify:

The imported files had an Oracle license.
The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.

One file of the 101:
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
This is a two line file that probably needs no header

[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of the 
Apache header

36 files are manifest files. 

[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of the 
Apache header
2 README

[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 / golden
Doesn't appear to have any content
 4 golden files

[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org / 
netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options / 
CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
6 form files

[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src / org / 
netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
32 png files that do not need Apache headers
80

remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven

3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers

remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match exactly

remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers

What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the 543 
files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to the Apache 
license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.

Craig

[1] 
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b

https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  
> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
>> ...what are the
>> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
> 
> This was recently discussed here:
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> 
>> And isn't
>> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
> 
> It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
> 
> And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
> 
> Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> time, based on scripts under version control.
> 
> -Bertrand

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit

[Craig Russell]

Hi Gj,

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> All of the files in the ZIP are donated.
> 
> The list of 3rd party libs in the grant is the list of references to 3rd
> party libraries used by the files in the ZIP. Apache legal and Oracle legal

Some transparency, please. Who on the Apache legal team was involved? I do not 
recall seeing anything go by on the legal-internal list where these things 
should have been discussed.

My advice, should it have been solicited, would have been to remove all 
references to third party or separately licensed materials, given that you 
spent the last six months removing all such material from the zip file. 

The zip file was clean. The grant was not.
 
Craig

> are the ones who defined the requirement for that list to be drawn up.
> 
> Gj
> 
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:18, Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
>>  wrote:
>>> ...I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip
>> provided by
>>> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and
>> I
>>> started the transition to ASF...
>> 
>> I've had a look at the software grant provided with this donation [1]
>> and my non-lawyer understanding of it is that not all files found in
>> that zip are donated.
>> 
>> The grant indicates that the contents of that file [2] ("Code File")
>> are donated "excluding any third-party and separately licensed
>> material contained within the Code File".
>> 
>> My understanding is that this puts the burden on the NetBeans podling
>> to sort out the files and find out which ones are ok for an ASF
>> release and which ones are not.
>> 
>> I'm not going to touch any of this myself, it sounds like a big job
>> and a big responsibility for this podling - but maybe I'm missing
>> something.
>> 
>> -Bertrand
>> 
>> [1] in svn under private/documents/grants/oracle-america-netbeans.pdf
>> - ASF members have access
>> [2] SHA256(ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip)=
>> 7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a
>> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: Submitting patches for Netbeans 9.

[Craig Russell]

Hi Ross,

> On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Ross Lamont  wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Given that there are a lot of balls in the air with regard to apache 
> transition and Netbeans 9 release schedule, what is the correct process for 
> submitting a patch, and what chance of getting it into Netbeans 9?
> 
> Specifically:
> 1. Do I create a bug/feature in Jira or in Bugzilla?
> 2. I have not yet signed a contributor agreement.  Do I sign the old Oracle 
> one,

As Geertjan says, the Oracle agreement is not relevant to Apache. 

> or do I only deal with the Apache ICLA?

As you intend to participate in the Apache Netbeans project, I would recommend 
filing an ICLA. Detailed information is available at 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/#submitting

> Is there a different ICLA for contributor vs committer?

As Geertjan says, there is only one ICLA. 

Regards,

Craig

> 3. Is there any sort of code freeze (soft or otherwise) in place at the 
> moment for Netbeans 9.0, 8.3 or 8.2.1? The patch I’m proposing will be slim - 
> it is just a refactoring to replace some hardwired construction of Cookies 
> with a factory interface and Service Provider semantics (affecting 
> XMLDataObject).  This will allow me (and others) to develop new XML 
> validation algorithms as a plugin in isolation from the main build.
> 
> Cheers
> Ross

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [mentors] How does Apache prefer to receive donations?

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geertjan,

With three separate code donations, probably three separate CCLAs.

1. Upload the code to a public repository. How about 
github.org/oracle/netbeans? Create a directory called drop1 or something 
meaningful. Make the repository read-only so no one thinks it's "live".

2. Create a CCLA with list of people and list 
https://github.org/oracle/netbeans/drop1 in Schedule B.

3. Sign, scan, and send the CCLA to secret...@apache.org.

4. Secretary will ack and copy the incubator and netbeans private email lists.

5. You announce on this list that the donation is complete and list 
https://github.org/oracle/netbeans/drop1 as the first code drop. Everyone can 
look at the code and you can import the code into the apache netbeans 
repository.

6. If the license header is the standard Oracle copyright/GPL, it will need to 
be changed for all the relevant files. You can change the license headers in 
github, or as you import the code into Apache, or immediately after import. The 
important thing is that changing the license headers is transparent (visible to 
the public).

7. When drop2 is ready, repeat from step 1.

Regards,

Craig

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Craig,
> 
> In the case of NetBeans, we'll be doing three separate code donations,
> i.e., three separate CCLAs. Each CCLA will come with its own ZIP.
> 
> There'd be a time difference of some months between them.
> 
> So, the sequence would be, (1) send the CCLA to secretary@a.o and then (2)
> wait? for response from secretary@a.o.? Or what, exactly? and then (3) put
> the ZIP referred to in the CCLA in GitHub, where, which one exactly?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan
> 
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Craig Russell <apache@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Geertjan,
>> 
>> There are three kinds of contribution agreements. The individual one,
>> ICLA, is required for all committers. You are all familiar with this one.
>> 
>> The second is a software grant. This is specifically to grant rights to
>> the code to Apache from the owner, which might be a corporation or an
>> individual.
>> 
>> The third is a combination software grant and contributor enumeration,
>> called CCLA. It contains a grant and lists people from the corporation who
>> are specifically authorized to contribute code that is owned by the
>> corporation, including but not limited to the grant.
>> 
>> Any of these documents should be scanned and sent to secret...@apache.org.
>> 
>> The grant/ccla specifies the code/documentation/images to be contributed.
>> Usually the code is already in a public repository and the grant simply
>> provides the url to the code being granted. Can the ZIP file be uploaded to
>> a donor-owned repository like github? This approach makes it extremely easy
>> to trace what happens to the code as it is imported into an Apache
>> repository.
>> 
>> A separate agreement is usually executed to donate trademarks. That
>> discussion should be directed to tradema...@apache.org .
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all, especially our mentors, and others with Apache experience,
>>> 
>>> How does Apache prefer to receive donations?
>>> 
>>> Say hypothetically a donating organization has a ZIP file containing the
>>> source code to be donated, and a grant document, and now the donating
>>> organization is thinking exactly what to do with the ZIP file and grant
>>> document -- can someone advise the precise next steps, with variations,
>> and
>>> their sequence?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Geertjan
>> 
>> Craig L Russell
>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>> c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [mentors] How does Apache prefer to receive donations?

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geertjan,

There are three kinds of contribution agreements. The individual one, ICLA, is 
required for all committers. You are all familiar with this one.

The second is a software grant. This is specifically to grant rights to the 
code to Apache from the owner, which might be a corporation or an individual. 

The third is a combination software grant and contributor enumeration, called 
CCLA. It contains a grant and lists people from the corporation who are 
specifically authorized to contribute code that is owned by the corporation, 
including but not limited to the grant.

Any of these documents should be scanned and sent to secret...@apache.org.

The grant/ccla specifies the code/documentation/images to be contributed. 
Usually the code is already in a public repository and the grant simply 
provides the url to the code being granted. Can the ZIP file be uploaded to a 
donor-owned repository like github? This approach makes it extremely easy to 
trace what happens to the code as it is imported into an Apache repository. 

A separate agreement is usually executed to donate trademarks. That discussion 
should be directed to tradema...@apache.org .

Regards,

Craig

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, especially our mentors, and others with Apache experience,
> 
> How does Apache prefer to receive donations?
> 
> Say hypothetically a donating organization has a ZIP file containing the
> source code to be donated, and a grant document, and now the donating
> organization is thinking exactly what to do with the ZIP file and grant
> document -- can someone advise the precise next steps, with variations, and
> their sequence?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [mentors] how to edit http://incubator.apache.org/projects/netbeans.html

[Craig Russell]

Hi Gj,

I believe this page is editable with CMS. Open the page and type this into the 
browser window:

javascript:void(location.href='https://cms.apache.org/redirect?uri='+escape(location.href))

The CMS option page should open. If any difficulties, contact infra for 
guidance.

Good luck. 

Craig

> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi mentors,
> 
> I know I knew this or have been told how to do this. But I forgot and can't
> find the info -- how to edit/update/change this page:
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/netbeans.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gj

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: [mentors] Clearance for upcoming NetBeans events

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geertjan,

> On Mar 23, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, especially our Apache mentors,
> 
> I've been told by Mark Struberg that we need to get clearance for NetBeans
> events, re this link:
> 
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/events.html
> 
> We have several upcoming NetBeans events, in fact, these are happening
> continually, NetBeans events are organized all over the world by members of
> the NetBeans community. Upcoming ones include the following:
> 
> April 2017:
> NetBeans Day India in Bangalore
> NetBeans Day UK in London
> NetBeans Day Greece in Athens
> October 2017:
> NetBeans Day San Francisco
> January 2018
> NetBeans Day Canada in Montreal
> 
> All these are organized via members of the Apache NetBeans community.
> 
> What needs to be done to get clearance for the above, as well as upcoming
> events, must they be requested per event, etc.

Clearance is granted by VP, Brand (Shane Curcuru) usually in response to an 
email to tradema...@apache.org with a description of what is being requested. 
This is a private email list. The request should reference any discussion that 
has happened on dev and private lists to give complete context. 

For a list of events such as you’ve described, a blanket request is fine 
assuming that the (P)PMC has been involved. A description of the events and the 
involvement of the (P)PMC is what VP, Brand will use to either approve or ask 
more questions.

Casual get-togethers with no commercial sponsors are probably easier to get 
approval for. 
> 
> Right now, the NetBeans brand has not been transferred officially to
> Apache, we'd like to do this once the first code donation has taken place.

Good to start planning now. 

> Ultimately I suppose all these events would be known as Apache NetBeans
> Days rather than NetBeans Days.

This is currently not part of the allowed event branding, although it is under 
discussion. 

Hope this helps, 

Craig
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

Re: Language for Schedule A and Schedule B of the CCLA

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geertjan,

> On Nov 9, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> [Q1] The first question I have about this is: "What if people are added to
> the list of committers from Oracle, i.e., I already know others from Oracle
> are interested in being involved and will provide their ICLA and will need
> to be voted in since they weren't in the initial list of committers in the
> NetBeans Proposal. However, does that mean that we need to update the CCLA
> whenever someone else from Oracle joins in? Or, if not, how can additional
> Oracle employees be backed up by a CCLA if we're not going to be updating
> Schedule A in the CCLA that we're now working on?”

The CCLA is not strictly required since the ICLA contains the wording “ 
4. You represent that you are legally entitled to grant the above
   license. If your employer(s) has rights to intellectual property
   that you create that includes your Contributions, you represent
   that you have received permission to make Contributions on behalf
   of that employer, that your employer has waived such rights for
   your Contributions to the Foundation, or that your employer has
   executed a separate Corporate CLA with the Foundation.
”.

So the CCLA is just an explicit affirmation of the above.

[A1] The CCLA schedule A can be updated simply by sending email to secretary. 
Preferably from the person identified as the contact for the CCLA.

Regards,

Craig

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [DISCUSS] NetBeans Transition Sequence

[Craig Russell]

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
> ,
> 
>> The CCLA clarifies the status of all Oracle employees with regard to their
>> contributions to the code.
> 
> 
> But that's not the software grant. This is the software grant:
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf

Please. The CCLA’s complete name is 

Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement

It contains Schedule A which names the employees.

It also contains Schedule B which makes the separate software-grant-template 
unnecessary.

Whoever is working with Oracle Legal can ask that whatever we decide is the 
best wording for the grant, that wording goes into Schedule B.

Please do not use the software-grant-template.

Craig
> 
> Gj
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Geert,
>> 
>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here's what it looks like:
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>> 
>> Please do not use this license. Use the CCLA instead.
>> 
>> The CCLA clarifies the status of all Oracle employees with regard to their
>> contributions to the code.
>> 
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>>> 
>>> It's in the process of being signed right now, it's being worked on right
>>> now, might take a week or so the way it looks now.
>>> 
>>> The question remains -- and can someone answer it: once the grant has
>> been
>>> signed and handed over to Apache, what happens if for some reason the
>>> process fails, must Apache then sign a document to grant the code back to
>>> Oracle?
>>> 
>>> Gj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I didn't mean just an empty git repo, I meant the canonical repository
>> from
>>>> which daily builds and releases are made.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe with this proposal Oracle has agreed to the following:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Changing the project license to the Apache license
>>>> 2. Contributing further changes under the Apache license
>>>> 3. Following the Apache governance model and
>>>> 3. Granting code ownership to the Apache Software Foundation.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know how a software grant document looks like but I assume there
>>>> are articles about 'unwinding'. Oracle legal should talk to Apache legal
>>>> and clear this out.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems to me though that without the code grant incubation hasn't
>> really
>>>> started. I mean, incubation is not about due diligence or legal
>> discovery.
>>>> 
>>>> Still, there is nothing stopping Oracle from following 1, 2 and 3. They
>>>> could change the license to the Apache license this very week.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --emi
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>>>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The point is this -- during incubation, we're going to be working on
>>>>> establishing whether Apache NetBeans can exist or not, from many
>>>> different
>>>>> points of view. And, even though we don't believe the process will
>> fail,
>>>> it
>>>>> would be a problem if Oracle has granted the code to Apache only to
>> find
>>>>> that for some reason Apache NetBeans will not be able to leave the
>>>>> incubator. Let's say, for example, there's a licensing problem that
>>>> cannot
>>>>> be fixed. If the software has already been granted, it would then need
>> to
>>>>> be 'ungranted' at that stage. That's my concern and why I think the
>> code
>>>>> should only be granted formally, i.e., via the formal SGA document,
>> when
>>>> we
>>>>> know for sure that incubation will succeed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That means that we can work on setting up the Git repo immediately and,
>>>>> once we know what we want to move there, we move the source code there.
>>>>> Then we start the process

Re: [DISCUSS] NetBeans Transition Sequence

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geert,

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> Here's what it looks like:
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf

Please do not use this license. Use the CCLA instead.

The CCLA clarifies the status of all Oracle employees with regard to their 
contributions to the code.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

Thanks,

Craig

> 
> It's in the process of being signed right now, it's being worked on right
> now, might take a week or so the way it looks now.
> 
> The question remains -- and can someone answer it: once the grant has been
> signed and handed over to Apache, what happens if for some reason the
> process fails, must Apache then sign a document to grant the code back to
> Oracle?
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Emilian Bold 
> wrote:
> 
>> I didn't mean just an empty git repo, I meant the canonical repository from
>> which daily builds and releases are made.
>> 
>> I believe with this proposal Oracle has agreed to the following:
>> 
>> 1. Changing the project license to the Apache license
>> 2. Contributing further changes under the Apache license
>> 3. Following the Apache governance model and
>> 3. Granting code ownership to the Apache Software Foundation.
>> 
>> I don't know how a software grant document looks like but I assume there
>> are articles about 'unwinding'. Oracle legal should talk to Apache legal
>> and clear this out.
>> 
>> It seems to me though that without the code grant incubation hasn't really
>> started. I mean, incubation is not about due diligence or legal discovery.
>> 
>> Still, there is nothing stopping Oracle from following 1, 2 and 3. They
>> could change the license to the Apache license this very week.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --emi
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The point is this -- during incubation, we're going to be working on
>>> establishing whether Apache NetBeans can exist or not, from many
>> different
>>> points of view. And, even though we don't believe the process will fail,
>> it
>>> would be a problem if Oracle has granted the code to Apache only to find
>>> that for some reason Apache NetBeans will not be able to leave the
>>> incubator. Let's say, for example, there's a licensing problem that
>> cannot
>>> be fixed. If the software has already been granted, it would then need to
>>> be 'ungranted' at that stage. That's my concern and why I think the code
>>> should only be granted formally, i.e., via the formal SGA document, when
>> we
>>> know for sure that incubation will succeed.
>>> 
>>> That means that we can work on setting up the Git repo immediately and,
>>> once we know what we want to move there, we move the source code there.
>>> Then we start the process of 'scrubbing the code', i.e., checking its
>>> licenses and noting any problems and seeking their solutions. Not sure
>> how
>>> long this will take, but maybe not too long, a month or so, just a
>>> guesstimate. Once we have worked through the licensing, and we know for
>>> sure incubation will succeed, we can get the SGA, if we know for sure
>> there
>>> will be no blockers. We did a preliminary investigation of this prior to
>>> putting the proposal together, but at this point we'll have done a
>> thorough
>>> analysis.
>>> 
>>> Then, once we have the SGA, those who have signed the ICLAs can begin
>>> working on committing code agreed upon by the project in terms of a
>>> commonly drawn up roadmap. So, it's not a question of waiting until next
>>> year sometime to start committing, just a question of waiting until we
>> know
>>> for 100% sure that the process will not have to be unwound before
>> actually
>>> having the code granted from Oracle.
>>> 
>>> Does the above make sense?
>>> 
>>> Gj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Emilian Bold 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Migrating the repository over to git and the code grant should happen
>> in
 2016.
 
 We have some momentum here but if I have to wait until Summer 2017 to
 commit using my @apache ID I signed the iCLA 6 months too soon.
 
 Also, it's a premature optimization to change too much the code
>>> repository.
 It seems like a juicy engineering task to split it up, filter it,
>>> whatever.
 But it is pointless.
 
 What's essential first is for work to be possible and to start on the
>> git
 repo. We could have another goal during the incubation or even after
 incubation to split the repository.
 
 I don't think the unwinding should be your main concern. Code changes
>>> will
 have to be done regardless of who owns the IP.
 
 As an alternative to this Oracle concern, you could require
>> contributors
>>> to
 have both an iCLA and an OCA, although perhaps the Apache iCLA might be
 sufficient. Apache Legal might intervene 

Re: [DISCUSS] NetBeans Transition Sequence

[Craig Russell]

I just re-read the OCA that all contributors to NetBeans has to sign in order 
for their contribution to be accepted. 
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf

It is very different from the Apache ICLA. It grants joint ownership to Oracle 
and the contributor, including licensing rights through multiple levels of 
license.

So I’d say that Oracle has the right to donate any code that they have, whether 
created by Oracle employees or by contributors who signed the OCA.

And with the assurance that Oracle will in fact sign and submit a CCLA that 
covers their interest in NetBeans code, patches, documentation, tutorials, 
graphics, specifications, and manuals (this list is from the OCA): we don’t 
need an exhaustive list of files. 

So I don’t think we need to hold up analyzing and moving over stuff from the 
repositories that are controlled by Oracle. Any contribution made between now 
and when the repository officially changes to Apache will be covered by the 
OCA. And any contribution made after the move will be covered by the Apache 
CCLA/ICLA.

It would be good to know from Oracle whether they intend to contribute 
everything they control.

Then our job is to identify things that are now in other repositories and/or 
are dynamically linked to the code that Oracle controls. 

Craig

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
> 
> Hi Geertjan
> 
> 
> Am 10/10/2016 um 11:18 PM schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> An overview of the sequence as far as I understand it. Consider it a basic
>> starting point for discussion.
>> 
>> Let's start by assuming we want there to be a NetBeans 9 to be released out
>> of Apache, and as a top level project, i.e., outside the incubator, in line
>> with the release of Java 9.
>> 
>> That puts us in the middle of next year somewhere.
>> 
>> The most important aspect that needs to be worked through before then is
>> the IP, license hygiene, etc. Before we get to the point where we're
>> working on that, we need to actually have one or more Mercurial repos that
>> we know we want to move. Right now, the NetBeans 9 branch is being moved
>> into trunk, once that's done we need to consider whether we should take the
>> NetBeans trunk as our starting point -- and determine other brances we'll
>> need.
>> 
>> We'll then need to work through the IP issues, i.e., work through the
>> incompatible licenses and work out solutions for those. Some features might
>> be dropped, others can be installed via plugins, either separately or
>> during installation.
>> 
>> At the point where we've worked through those licensing issues and are at a
>> stage where we either have temporary exceptions for truly problematic
>> areas, while knowing what the ultimate solutions for those will be, or we
>> have solved everything, we'll be at the point where Oracle's SGA (software
>> grant agreement) can be worked on.
>> 
>> In other words, based on the above, the SGA would be executed as one of the
>> LAST steps of the incubation period. After all, if we do uncover
>> insurmountable issues during the incubation period, in particular in
>> relation to licensing, having executed such a grant too early would lead to
>> a very difficult unwinding of the process.
> I see it differently. Oracle has to singn the SGA first. Or do you think, we 
> smell which file Oracle owns the Copyright, and which one not? ;-) Normaly we 
> get a list of files which are granted. I think, this is very important and 
> should be one of the first step. But maybe you can describe your problem a 
> bit closer.
> 
> Regards
> Raphael

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo