Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/13/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, here at OFBiz we'd like to go on with the IP-clearance effort but, since we are going to contact *many* developers, we would like to be sure that the steps we'll perform are the correct ones. Anyone here could help us to answer these questions? If not, could you please post a message to the legal-discuss list (it is only open to ASF committers) to see if we can get some feedback from them? Go ahead and use the iCLA as is. While the iCLA covers everything, you should clearly explain the license change in your notice to contributors in order to reduce any confusion. If anyone else has specific questions, they can send them our way. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
J Aaron, thanks for your feedback. Sorry but I still have some doubts about this: if a guy signs an iCLA in which he states that he agrees to release under the ASL all the work (present and future) that he sends to the ASF (thru mailing lists, Jira, SVN etc...), in which way this agreement will address the work that the guy did and donated in the past under a different licence and to a different project/community? Thanks for your time and patience! Jacopo J Aaron Farr wrote: On 2/13/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, here at OFBiz we'd like to go on with the IP-clearance effort but, since we are going to contact *many* developers, we would like to be sure that the steps we'll perform are the correct ones. Anyone here could help us to answer these questions? If not, could you please post a message to the legal-discuss list (it is only open to ASF committers) to see if we can get some feedback from them? Go ahead and use the iCLA as is. While the iCLA covers everything, you should clearly explain the license change in your notice to contributors in order to reduce any confusion. If anyone else has specific questions, they can send them our way. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/13/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J Aaron, thanks for your feedback. Sorry but I still have some doubts about this: if a guy signs an iCLA in which he states that he agrees to release under the ASL all the work (present and future) that he sends to the ASF (thru mailing lists, Jira, SVN etc...), in which way this agreement will address the work that the guy did and donated in the past under a different licence and to a different project/community? Incubating OFBiz = present contribution. For former contributors, the purpose of the iCLA is to cover this current contribution to the Incubator. While the contribution may be in the past as far as OFBiz is concerned, it's in the present as far as the ASF is concerned. In other words, the contributor is re-contributing the code as part of the incubation grant. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:26 AM, J Aaron Farr wrote: On 2/13/06, Jacopo Cappellato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J Aaron, thanks for your feedback. Sorry but I still have some doubts about this: if a guy signs an iCLA in which he states that he agrees to release under the ASL all the work (present and future) that he sends to the ASF (thru mailing lists, Jira, SVN etc...), in which way this agreement will address the work that the guy did and donated in the past under a different licence and to a different project/community? Incubating OFBiz = present contribution. For former contributors, the purpose of the iCLA is to cover this current contribution to the Incubator. While the contribution may be in the past as far as OFBiz is concerned, it's in the present as far as the ASF is concerned. In other words, the contributor is re-contributing the code as part of the incubation grant. Yes, this makes sense. We are basically getting together as a big group of people who have written things for OFBiz and contributing them all to the ASF. This is the only way to do it as technically no single entity owns all of the OFBiz code. As far as picking on the term present goes it could be interpreted as the initial code contribution as J Aaron described, or the way I was thinking of it was that technically in licensing there is no past it is the present state of the work or a particular state of the work that is of concern. -David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Hi all, here at OFBiz we'd like to go on with the IP-clearance effort but, since we are going to contact *many* developers, we would like to be sure that the steps we'll perform are the correct ones. Anyone here could help us to answer these questions? If not, could you please post a message to the legal-discuss list (it is only open to ASF committers) to see if we can get some feedback from them? Thanks so much, Jacopo Jacopo Cappellato wrote: David, maybe you are right... but the past contributions were made to the OFBiz project not to the ASF. Are we sure we should use the ASF iCLA as is? Jacopo David E. Jones wrote: On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have a question for you: what is the iCLA template we should collect from the OFBiz's contributors? The one here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ? If so, maybe I'm wrong but... I don't see how this document will address the change from a BSD to ASL license since it clearly states that the CLA is for present and future Contributions submitted to the (Apache Software) Foundation. Am I missing something? I don't know if those words have any loaded meanings from a legal perspective, but I think present would include past contributions in the sense that at present they are part of the code base. Or perhaps that isn't a safe way of looking at it? -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Hi all, I have a question for you: what is the iCLA template we should collect from the OFBiz's contributors? The one here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ? If so, maybe I'm wrong but... I don't see how this document will address the change from a BSD to ASL license since it clearly states that the CLA is for present and future Contributions submitted to the (Apache Software) Foundation. Am I missing something? Jacopo Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright to some part of the work. So, it is those people who have contributed functionality greater than a simple bug fix. Agreed. I was trying to keep it simple, in order to avoid problems with people trying to determine the diff between the 2. :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have a question for you: what is the iCLA template we should collect from the OFBiz's contributors? The one here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ? If so, maybe I'm wrong but... I don't see how this document will address the change from a BSD to ASL license since it clearly states that the CLA is for present and future Contributions submitted to the (Apache Software) Foundation. Am I missing something? I don't know if those words have any loaded meanings from a legal perspective, but I think present would include past contributions in the sense that at present they are part of the code base. Or perhaps that isn't a safe way of looking at it? -David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OFBiz - next steps
David, maybe you are right... but the past contributions were made to the OFBiz project not to the ASF. Are we sure we should use the ASF iCLA as is? Jacopo David E. Jones wrote: On Feb 10, 2006, at 4:51 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: Hi all, I have a question for you: what is the iCLA template we should collect from the OFBiz's contributors? The one here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ? If so, maybe I'm wrong but... I don't see how this document will address the change from a BSD to ASL license since it clearly states that the CLA is for present and future Contributions submitted to the (Apache Software) Foundation. Am I missing something? I don't know if those words have any loaded meanings from a legal perspective, but I think present would include past contributions in the sense that at present they are part of the code base. Or perhaps that isn't a safe way of looking at it? -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright to some part of the work. So, it is those people who have contributed functionality greater than a simple bug fix. Agreed. I was trying to keep it simple, in order to avoid problems with people trying to determine the diff between the 2. :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/7/06, David E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that would necessitate a license grant document? You would just need a CLA not a software grant form for each contributor. SpamAssassin required every person who ever submitted a patch that was committed to submit a CLA. This implied that every person who ever contributed a rule to SA signed a CLA with the ASF before Incubation was complete. (SA was also changing licenses too.) That was their biggest hurdle in Incubation, and it's probably going to be the biggest challenge for any existing open-source project that has a community as well to enter the ASF. Targetting everyone is probably the correct way to start off. At a minimum, anyone who ever had write access to your repositories should have a CLA on file before graduation. Once you see how many people you can't get CLAs for, then we can make a determination about what to do next: remove the patches they contributed from the code base or deem them small enough contributions not to require a CLA. (In case you're wondering, the current ALv2 says that Contributions made back to us are licensed to us under the ALv2 - therefore, we don't *require* CLAs from people who don't have commit who send us patches on our mailing list.) HTH. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/5/2006 2:32 PM, David N. Welton wrote: Leo Simons wrote: *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. Ok, I added /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance/ofbiz.xml - although I only cut the lines to be cut and changed the title. More later... Don't forget to check in the HTML files that are generated and update the web site: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html Regards, Alan
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Hi all, do we really need to create an ip-clearance page for the OFBiz project? After reading the informations here http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html I think that we don't need such a page for OFBiz since it is a new project. Am I wrong? Jacopo Alan D. Cabrera wrote: On 2/5/2006 2:32 PM, David N. Welton wrote: Leo Simons wrote: *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. Ok, I added /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance/ofbiz.xml - although I only cut the lines to be cut and changed the title. More later... Don't forget to check in the HTML files that are generated and update the web site: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/8/06, David E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Under the MIT license we have been using there is no assignment or granting of copyright. All of the code is licensed under the MIT license, and the copyright everywhere is listed under The Open For Business Project. I don't know if this is an issue or not as the Apache license doesn't involve ownership of copyright, just a use license grant and such. Do we need to get any sort of license grant from other contributors? Under the MIT license terms we can add a license to it, but not remove that license, but if read literally the license comes from The Open For Business Project. So, I guess I'm not sure what we really need in this area... There are a number of ways in which we can handle this, but the first step is to get a list of all those who have had direct commit access to Open For Business. The next list you'll want are contributors whose code is in Open For Business but who never had commit rights. As Justin explain, this can be the most difficult part, but it's not only necessary, it's worth it because it ensures the code is free and clear to be used properly. I'll help with this item in any way I can. And no, we don't need ip-clearance files, we need CLAs. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On 2/8/06, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That seems contradictory to what the IP clearance page says. Now I'm totally confused because that would mean we don't need that complex process of getting the software grant together for that contribution we're planning to integrate in Apache FOP because we have ICLAs on file for all three contributors. The software grant is our preferred mechanism for code bases that can be collectively licensed as a whole and submitted that way - especially so for code that 'skips' Incubation (like the FOP example). For those projects coming to the Incubator that have a single copyright holder (like BEA, IBM, etc.), the software grant is the cleanest approach as well. But, for OFBiz (like SA), no entity has the authority to relicense the work and submit it to the ASF in the form of a software grant. Therefore, we need CLAs from everyone who contributed at a minimum. We could conceivably ask for a grant, but if we decided to execute a software grant form for every OFBiz contributor, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare as well. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 08.02.2006 09:48:39 Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 2/7/06, David E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that would necessitate a license grant document? You would just need a CLA not a software grant form for each contributor. That seems contradictory to what the IP clearance page says. Now I'm totally confused because that would mean we don't need that complex process of getting the software grant together for that contribution we're planning to integrate in Apache FOP because we have ICLAs on file for all three contributors. The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that says I/We own this software and we are granting it to the ASF. So unless there is a legal entity that owns the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to relicense it. In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Okay, I think this thread is clearing up the issues pretty well. The iCLA is the most important part in this case, and will be much easier to get through with everyone than a license grant. Technically The Open For Business Project is a legal entity, but it doesn't really own any of the code as it has never had any money or paid anyone to write anything. Everything is a contribution from an individual (sometimes working for a company) and so we (contributors to OFBiz) will all need to submit an iCLA and perhaps in certain cases a cCLA. We'll get going on the list and start sending out requests... -David On Feb 8, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 4:26 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 08.02.2006 09:48:39 Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 2/7/06, David E. Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that would necessitate a license grant document? You would just need a CLA not a software grant form for each contributor. That seems contradictory to what the IP clearance page says. Now I'm totally confused because that would mean we don't need that complex process of getting the software grant together for that contribution we're planning to integrate in Apache FOP because we have ICLAs on file for all three contributors. The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that says I/We own this software and we are granting it to the ASF. So unless there is a legal entity that owns the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to relicense it. In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that says I/We own this software and we are granting it to the ASF. So unless there is a legal entity that owns the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to relicense it. yep In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright to some part of the work. So, it is those people who have contributed functionality greater than a simple bug fix. OTOH, the mentors should be aware that, because this work is already licensed under BSD terms, there is no LEGAL risk to the foundation if we can't get all the signatures -- those remaining are simply considered reuse of BSD-licensed code. However, we still want the CLAs for social reasons and to confirm that moving the contributions to Apache License is a voluntary act. Also, it reduces the vulnerability of the original OFBiz group if we obtain this permission now, while their contributors are still in the mood. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright to some part of the work. So, it is those people who have contributed functionality greater than a simple bug fix. OTOH, the mentors should be aware that, because this work is already licensed under BSD terms, there is no LEGAL risk to the foundation if we can't get all the signatures -- those remaining are simply considered reuse of BSD-licensed code. However, we still want the CLAs for social reasons and to confirm that moving the contributions to Apache License is a voluntary act. Also, it reduces the vulnerability of the original OFBiz group if we obtain this permission now, while their contributors are still in the mood. I guess we'll start with everyone that has been a committer or who has submitted a patch. For OFBiz this will be a fairly large list, I'm guessing around 100-200 people. Some of these have not been involved for a long time as people have been involved on and off over the nearly 5 years of the project so far. I guess once we get down the road a bit and find out who we can't get in contact with or who won't sign an iCLA we can decide how to resolve those issues... -David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Thanks to everyone helping clear up things. What Roy says here would indicate that we wouldn't strictly need the grant for out FOP contribution because the code is already published under the ALv2 and all three people involved have ICLAs on file with the ASF. :-) But I'm sure we can get them to do the additional paperwork. On 08.02.2006 22:12:04 Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: The reason is that the Software Grant is a legal vehicles that says I/We own this software and we are granting it to the ASF. So unless there is a legal entity that owns the code, they cannot grant it to the ASF to allow us to relicense it. yep In that case, each person who ever committed a line of code needs to submit a iCLA which allows their patches (and therefore, once everyone has one on file, the complete codebase) to be relicensed under the AL. Actually, it is only needed from everyone who might own copyright to some part of the work. So, it is those people who have contributed functionality greater than a simple bug fix. OTOH, the mentors should be aware that, because this work is already licensed under BSD terms, there is no LEGAL risk to the foundation if we can't get all the signatures -- those remaining are simply considered reuse of BSD-licensed code. However, we still want the CLAs for social reasons and to confirm that moving the contributions to Apache License is a voluntary act. Also, it reduces the vulnerability of the original OFBiz group if we obtain this permission now, while their contributors are still in the mood. Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:04 AM, David N. Welton wrote: *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. I have some questions specific to the IP clearance issue for OFBiz. I looked at the legal-discuss mailing list, but it appears to only be open to committers. I have my iCLA on its way, though I'm not sure how long that takes and if I should wait for that to ask this question. The main question is that while one of the strengths of OFBiz is that there is a good community made up of a number of people and a LOT of people (dozens) who have contributed code to the project, but that also means that if I understand it right the initial license grant is somewhat tricky... The main resources I've found for the license grant are: http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Under the MIT license we have been using there is no assignment or granting of copyright. All of the code is licensed under the MIT license, and the copyright everywhere is listed under The Open For Business Project. I don't know if this is an issue or not as the Apache license doesn't involve ownership of copyright, just a use license grant and such. Do we need to get any sort of license grant from other contributors? Under the MIT license terms we can add a license to it, but not remove that license, but if read literally the license comes from The Open For Business Project. So, I guess I'm not sure what we really need in this area... Are there any guidelines about the size of a code contribution that would necessitate a license grant document? I guess one way or another we need to go through the commits and pick out who we need to get a document signed by. Before getting started with this we made sure that all current contributors were okay with it, but it is sounding more and more like the group of people who need to sign over a license grant for OFBiz may be pretty large... So, it is clear that all current committers and those who have contributed larger chunks of code need to sign and submit a license grant, but I'm wondering where we can (or need to) draw the line... For example, if someone submits a patch and we apply it, do we need to get a license grant from that person no matter the size of the patch? If this is better to put and discuss on the legal-discuss list just let me know and I'll do what is needed to get on that list, or perhaps David, Yoav, or J. Aaron could help with this. -David smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Leo Simons wrote: As long as you make sure that the questions are more obvious from the docs afterwards, don't apologize :-) *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. Ok, I added /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance/ofbiz.xml - although I only cut the lines to be cut and changed the title. More later... Its not just the ip clearance that's needed. There's the concept of an incubator status file (see below). I added that too, thanks to Jacopo Cappellato, who did the initial version of it. *) iCLA's - the OFBiz guys are working on it. This needs to happen before they get accounts, and conversely, they get accounts once this happens, right? if the right emails are sent as documented on /dev/, yup. Which /dev/ are you referring to? *) Cleaning up the code - they're in the process of cleaning up the code, getting rid of LGPL dependencies. This needs to happen prior to the code touching our subversion repositories, correct? No. It needs to happen prior to making any kind of release, and no LGPL code or binaries should touch our SVN. But working on removing such a dependency while within the incubator is okay. Ok - I get the impression that they've got a good handle on this, and may be able to do the initial import with no dependancies. *) JIRA - they have a JIRA instance of their own, which should be migrated to the ASF. I don't know anything about admin'ing JIRA, so I believe this step will require collaboration between David Jones and someone on the infrastructure team. Should I/we go ahead and open an issue on our side for JIRA migration? Does this step have dependencies, or can it start to happen when people are ready to do the work? Yes, go ahead. I think this is quite a tricky thing to do. Jeff Turner is the guy from the infra team to talk to. Ok. So, if David Jones is reading this, that would be jefft followed by apache.org, right? *) Mailing lists - an issue needs to be opened for the infrastructure team to create them, and then collaborate on moving over the existing subscriber list. Same question on dependencies as above. No particular dependencies. Provide the subscriber list as a file with email addresses seperated by newlines and add it to the jira issue, and its easy for the apmail people to add all those people in one swoop. Once that is done you can send an email to the new mailing list and all those people will know they're on a new list. Handling external mailing list archives (eg marc, mail-archives, gmane) might be a little work and depends on how those archives are set up to interact with the ASF stuff; I think some of them have 'special' support. I'll let the OFBiz guys take it from here on this issue... Anything else? The first step before doing any of the above is to get an incubation status file filled out and up on http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html Eg, start off with https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/incubation-status-template.xml Thanks to Jacopo, we have an initial cut at that, but neither he nor I has the tools to turn it into HTML (and I need to get some sleep tonight). If anyone else on the OFBiz team wants to have a crack at it, it's attached to this email (I'm not sure you can access the incubator repo anonymously?). -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? document properties !--meta content=HTML Tidy, see www.w3.org name=generator/-- !--meta content=text/html; charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type/-- titleOFBiz Incubation Status/title link href=http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/; rel=schema.DC/ /properties body section id=OFBiz+Project+Incubation+Status titleOFBiz Project Incubation Status/title pThis page tracks the project status, incubator-wise. For more general project status, look on the project website./p /section section id=Description titleDescription/title p The Open For Business Project (OFBiz) is an open source enterprise automation software project. By open source enterprise automation we mean: Open Source ERP, Open Source CRM, Open Source E-Business / E-Commerce, Open Source SCM, Open Source MRP, Open Source CMMS/EAM, and so on. It is one of the few apps of this type to be developed by a community, rather than one corporation. /p /section section id=News titleNews/title ul li2006-01-31 Project accepted by the Incubator PMC/li li2006-01-10 Project proposed to the Incubator PMC/li /ul /section section id=Project+info titleProject info/title ul lilink to the main website/li /ul ul lilink to the page(s) that tell how to participate (Website,Mailing lists,Bug tracking,Source
Re: OFBiz - next steps
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 11:32:59PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote: *) iCLA's - the OFBiz guys are working on it. This needs to happen before they get accounts, and conversely, they get accounts once this happens, right? if the right emails are sent as documented on /dev/, yup. Which /dev/ are you referring to? http://www.apache.org/dev/, sorry. *) JIRA - they have a JIRA instance of their own, which should be migrated to the ASF. I don't know anything about admin'ing JIRA, so I believe this step will require collaboration between David Jones and someone on the infrastructure team. Should I/we go ahead and open an issue on our side for JIRA migration? Does this step have dependencies, or can it start to happen when people are ready to do the work? Yes, go ahead. I think this is quite a tricky thing to do. Jeff Turner is the guy from the infra team to talk to. Ok. So, if David Jones is reading this, that would be jefft followed by apache.org, right? Think so. Make sure to use the mailing lists :-) If anyone else on the OFBiz team wants to have a crack at it, it's attached to this email (I'm not sure you can access the incubator repo anonymously?). Yep. As open as possible: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/ http://incubator.apache.org/howtoparticipate.html#Project+Website+Howto http://incubator.apache.org/guides/website.html cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OFBiz - next steps
Hi, So, with the vote having passed, there are some things to do. I think we need some guidance in terms of things to do and what steps can be run in parallel. Sorry if some of this is obvious. *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. *) iCLA's - the OFBiz guys are working on it. This needs to happen before they get accounts, and conversely, they get accounts once this happens, right? *) Cleaning up the code - they're in the process of cleaning up the code, getting rid of LGPL dependencies. This needs to happen prior to the code touching our subversion repositories, correct? *) JIRA - they have a JIRA instance of their own, which should be migrated to the ASF. I don't know anything about admin'ing JIRA, so I believe this step will require collaboration between David Jones and someone on the infrastructure team. Should I/we go ahead and open an issue on our side for JIRA migration? Does this step have dependencies, or can it start to happen when people are ready to do the work? *) Mailing lists - an issue needs to be opened for the infrastructure team to create them, and then collaborate on moving over the existing subscriber list. Same question on dependencies as above. Anything else? Thankyou, -- David N. Welton - http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/ Linux, Open Source Consulting - http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
David N. Welton wrote: Hi, *) Cleaning up the code - they're in the process of cleaning up the code, getting rid of LGPL dependencies. This needs to happen prior to the code touching our subversion repositories, correct? Preferrably, though not a must. eg Roller has them.. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFBiz - next steps
Hi David, On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:04:03PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote: So, with the vote having passed, there are some things to do. I think we need some guidance in terms of things to do and what steps can be run in parallel. Sorry if some of this is obvious. As long as you make sure that the questions are more obvious from the docs afterwards, don't apologize :-) *) IP clearance checklist - I need to make a copy of that in SVN here, /incubator/site-author/ip-clearance. I'll try and get that done over the weekend. Its not just the ip clearance that's needed. There's the concept of an incubator status file (see below). *) iCLA's - the OFBiz guys are working on it. This needs to happen before they get accounts, and conversely, they get accounts once this happens, right? if the right emails are sent as documented on /dev/, yup. *) Cleaning up the code - they're in the process of cleaning up the code, getting rid of LGPL dependencies. This needs to happen prior to the code touching our subversion repositories, correct? No. It needs to happen prior to making any kind of release, and no LGPL code or binaries should touch our SVN. But working on removing such a dependency while within the incubator is okay. *) JIRA - they have a JIRA instance of their own, which should be migrated to the ASF. I don't know anything about admin'ing JIRA, so I believe this step will require collaboration between David Jones and someone on the infrastructure team. Should I/we go ahead and open an issue on our side for JIRA migration? Does this step have dependencies, or can it start to happen when people are ready to do the work? Yes, go ahead. I think this is quite a tricky thing to do. Jeff Turner is the guy from the infra team to talk to. *) Mailing lists - an issue needs to be opened for the infrastructure team to create them, and then collaborate on moving over the existing subscriber list. Same question on dependencies as above. No particular dependencies. Provide the subscriber list as a file with email addresses seperated by newlines and add it to the jira issue, and its easy for the apmail people to add all those people in one swoop. Once that is done you can send an email to the new mailing list and all those people will know they're on a new list. Handling external mailing list archives (eg marc, mail-archives, gmane) might be a little work and depends on how those archives are set up to interact with the ASF stuff; I think some of them have 'special' support. Anything else? The first step before doing any of the above is to get an incubation status file filled out and up on http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html Eg, start off with https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/incubation-status-template.xml cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
