Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-14 Thread John D. Ament
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:51 AM Henri Yandell wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:46 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > > > > > - Its not usual for a podling to receive a subsequent donation. > > > > Doesn't the IP Clearance also cover the initial

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-13 Thread Henri Yandell
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:46 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > - Its not usual for a podling to receive a subsequent donation. > Doesn't the IP Clearance also cover the initial codebase review? Or is there a very similar page that's covering that? > - I hate that the IPMC

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-13 Thread John D. Ament
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:36 AM Henri Yandell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:52 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing.

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-12 Thread Henri Yandell
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:52 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being > > relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed. > > Well,

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-12 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being > relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed. Well, it is needed, even where that devolves to "has all SGA paperwork for this incoming

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-12 Thread John D. Ament
IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed. In addition, like any other podling coming in, work may be needed to generate a valid release from the donation. It may not just work. So i'd actually prefer to just drop the two

Re: IP Clearance terms

2017-01-11 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, > * Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project are > compatible with the license guidance given here: > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html Dependancies are often seen as external so perhaps “all items contained in or depended upon by the project” would be better?