Sounds like you should sign off on the first item in the Copyright
section of http://incubator.apache.org/projects/amber.html as n/a.
No code was relicensed to the ASF when Amber was created. Instead it
was a fork of Uni of Newcastle code and that copyright remains on the
code.
Hen
On Mon, Aug
Thanks a lot for your effort Henri,
we will do as you suggested.
Do you thing we are missing anything else legally wise?
Regards
Antonio
On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Sounds like you should sign off on the first item in the Copyright
section of
There are other legal items on that page that you should review and
decide if you can check off. If you're releasing, then I would expect
that page to have no unfinished tasks.
Hen
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Antonio Sanso asa...@adobe.com wrote:
Thanks a lot for your effort Henri,
we
Hi Henri,
thanks for taking care of this.
IANAL but technically yes I think that the OAuth 2.0 part of Amber can be
considered as a fork.
Before to perform the first release we followed what has been suggested in
LEGAL-134.
Did we miss something? Should we do something more or we can assume
OK, there's a grant filed. It has an MD5 in it. Ant linked to it. An
MD5 is not much help in matching the contents of svn to the contents
of the granted zip file, but I'll poke around for any other large
commits, and, if none exist, do as suggested.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Henri Yandell
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/kato.html should have a check mark for:
Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.
Just because it was
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/kato.html should have a check mark for:
Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF
been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the
Hi,
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell
flame...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did that.
Need to confirm that all copyright owners of any pre-Apache code
either
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Henri Yandell
flame...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Just because it was released doesn't mean that it correctly did
Hi Antonio,
This is about making sure that all software being contributed to
Apache is covered by CLAs (continuous contribution) or the software
license grant (single contribution). Legally it would also be fine to
fork software under a Category A license, though it's frowned upon
(ie: the status
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
Henri,
Ant pointed out that Kato released. Where is the signoff you are looking at?
--benson
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
2010-09-05 nuvem
2010-11-12 kitty
2010-11-24 stanbol
2011-06-13
Hi Kevan,
On Jul 13, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright
checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
2010-09-05 nuvem
Hi Henri,
Amber wise we tracked this in [0].
Now I am not sure if we can also tick the box.
Regards
Antonio
[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-134
On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
2009-02-13 stonehenge
2009-05-13 socialsite
2010-05-19 amber
2010-09-05 nuvem
2010-11-12 kitty
2010-11-24 stanbol
2011-06-13 openofficeorg
Said checklist item is:
Check and make sure that the
Updating status.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com wrote:
The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist item:
2009-02-09 kato
Retiring. Source needs deleting(?).
2009-02-13 stonehenge
Retired. Source needs deleting(?).
2009-05-13
17 matches
Mail list logo
