You probably don't need BOTH an SGA or a CCLA. Just one. A CCLA allows
future contributions. The SGA would just cover this one thing.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 9/14/11 9:18 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
>>
>> He worked on it "during his day job" and nobody legally r
On 9/14/11 9:18 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
He worked on it "during his day job" and nobody legally representing the
company(?) did "sign a software grant" or indicate agreement with the
contribution otherwise, correct? Can there be any other answer to your
question than no?
Thanks for you answ
Am 13.09.2011 21:38, schrieb Jörn Kottmann:
> The contributor told me that he worked on it also during his day job
and cannot reach
> his VP to sign a software grant and CCLA from him. Therefore he
decided to proceed as an individual
> and he did send an ICLA and SGA to the secretary.
>
> Can we no
Hi all,
the OpenNLP project would like to accept a contribution of a syntactic
generalization component.
The contributor told me that he worked on it also during his day job and
cannot reach
his VP to sign a software grant and CCLA from him. Therefore he decided
to proceed as an individual
an
On 10/02/2010, at 8:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Question on Step 3:
> 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 traditional
> License Agreement. Acceptable methods of sending the grant to the ASF
> includes:
> snai
So as I understand it, the old copyright can exist in the NOTICES file
and that's ok in conjunction with the standard Apache license headers
& copyright?
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> I think this will be
Question on Step 3:
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 traditional
License Agreement. Acceptable methods of sending the grant to the ASF
includes:
snail-mail to the ASF office and/or ASF officer
FAXing to the
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> I think this will be promoted now, after the recent license header
> issues in another podling...
+1
once i have a minute, i planned to drawing up additional policy
- robert
---
I think this will be promoted now, after the recent license header
issues in another podling...
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> The IP Clearance form says:
>
> Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
> updated to reflect the new ASF co
2010/2/1 Grant Ingersoll :
> What exactly is the "new ASF copyright"? Is it our standard license header?
The header and, eventually, update the NOTICE file with third party attribution.
> Is it really a requirement of a grant before it's even committed? Can't
> this be something done during c
The IP Clearance form says:
Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.
What exactly is the "new ASF copyright"? Is it our standard license header?
Is it really a requirement of a grant before it's even committed? Can'
On 7/6/09 5:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Follow up question, I assume our vote to accept the contribution is still
acceptable as well as the software grant from Paremus. So, the only
necessary action is to have Paremus submit a n
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Follow up question, I assume our vote to accept the contribution is still
> acceptable as well as the software grant from Paremus. So, the only
> necessary action is to have Paremus submit a new, Apache compatible archive.
> Is that correct?
Follow up question, I assume our vote to accept the contribution is
still acceptable as well as the software grant from Paremus. So, the
only necessary action is to have Paremus submit a new, Apache compatible
archive. Is that correct?
-> richard
On 7/6/09 12:52 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Ok
Ok, thanks.
-> richard
On 7/6/09 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Richard S. Hall wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
is covered by AGPL, which is a modified version o
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
>
> The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
> is covered by AGPL, which is a modified version of GPL. I am told by
> Paremus (the contributors) that only two minor
Hello,
I am trying to perform IP clearance on the Sigil project to Felix.
The contributed archive contains some embedded JAR files, one of which
is covered by AGPL, which is a modified version of GPL. I am told by
Paremus (the contributors) that only two minor classes depend on this
JAR and i
17 matches
Mail list logo
