Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
If you really feel that there needs to be a clarification, it should probably
go as a patch to the Apache site (specifically,
http://www.apache.org/licenses/), where it
I made an edit to the incubator site. What do you think of it?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Noel J. Bergman n...@devtech.com wrote:
Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
If you really feel that there
Hey folks,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software grant
plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to work on
Apache projects, whether on their own time or company
On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Hey folks,
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.com wrote:
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant
plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on
Craig,
Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
Thanks,
benson
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Craig L Russell
craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote:
Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
I tend to agree with Craig in this particular case, as HP owns the
code to Jena and
Hi Benson,
I have no problem with your clarifying the page.
Regards,
Craig
On Nov 27, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Craig,
Would you recommend that I edit the mentor page on the site with this
clarification, or should we wait for more polyphony?
Thanks,
benson
On Fri, Nov
On 27/11/10 13:34, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
I tend to agree with Craig in this particular case, as HP owns the
code to Jena and it's HP employes, covered by a CCLA, who are going to
commit it.
I dont' think this makes a material difference to this discussion, but
for clarity the committers
Well, this is going to depend on how the copyrights work, I guess. If
it's clear that HP owns the copyright (all the HP people were working
for hire), then a CCLA from HP will cover it. However, IANTL.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
If the code was developed in part by HP employees on the clock then
a CCLA or SGA must be obtained from HP.
If the code was developed in part by others, then those other persons
need to sign a SGA covering their contributions.
All the current developers need to sign an ICLA.
If any of the
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
The Jena podling has asked me. Their situation is that an HP copyright
is thought to cover all the 'corporate' code, and they wonder if there
is any reason for them to chase an SGA on
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
CCLA has been seen as required for individuals, working at the
company, to protect them from the
Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
So, if a CCLA is filed naming the software, a separate SGA is *not*
13 matches
Mail list logo
