Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Podling commons-rdf fits that description. It started at GitHub in the knowledge that ASF was a possible route; ALv2 from the start. (We started at GH because there are people who would join discussions more freely on GH.) It so happens, the contributors are all ASF committers. With advice from our champion, we settled on one SG, naming the contributors and signed by the original creator of the project (Sergio, who created the project) on behalf of the Commons RDF Community. We've just done that and ingested the code (today!) - if there is a better way, now is the time to say so because we can adjust easily. Andy (The SG leaves open things like an updated AL, not that is likely.) On 26/03/15 16:42, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the back of my head for a while… If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF), but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project (ALv2 license from day 1), would a Software Grant and/or IP clearance be required? Put another way, what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing ASF project? The documentation for the IP clearance template [1] states: Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository must be processed like this, even if the external developer is an ASF committer.” To me that sounds like any new module, or even a sufficiently large pull request, requires IP clearance. If that’s the case, I would expect the clearance document list [2] to be much longer than it is, and have more ASF projects represented there, especially some of the faster growing ones. -Taylor [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html [2] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a point where we said this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this situation with TinkerPop. We just did what we thought was best at the time. It would be good to have at least some codified guidelines somewhere on a wiki page or something that will help newly-incubating projects in similar situations. Since I do some assistance with secretary@, I don't mind helping with the documentation. I will be one of the main ones interested in said guidelines. :) On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:54 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Emmanuel, I apologize for hijacking your thread. Let me part (and create a new thread) by saying Welcome, Groovy! James On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Bertrand, It took me a second, but I think I found some threads of interest: https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/board/201502.mbox/%3CCABD8fLVxK8jRT-Rdut9xC2RnHmQ4v9yywe4owNf=98ghdyk...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/operations/201501.mbox/%3cc149fc5f-04ff-41ec-b741-f7958357a...@oracle.com%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke4LnWMv1zf8cy3GP3prp-r91WAEe2xi_FAuS=olmh...@mail.gmail.com%3E As you can see, we (by that I probably mean me) caused somewhat of a dust-up wrt TinkerPop's grant to the ASF. James On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: We need to make sure we get these guidelines nailed down, because that is not the advice we got when doing Tinker pop Do you have archive links to the relevant discussions? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:07 AM Guillaume Laforge glafo...@gmail.com wrote: So ultimately, what do we do? Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to sign something on behalf of the Groovy community or something like that? Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention as a whole? I believe where we got to with Tinkerpop was to submit a SGA from the major contributors in the community [1]. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tinkerpop-dev/201502.mbox/%3C54CFE2A4.9010207%40gmail.com%3E On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
We've only seen positive messages from the community at large about the move, all supporting and praising the decision, in various forms, whether on our mailing-lists, or twitter, etc. So the community is already aware of it and supports this move. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: Would the discussion on the dev@groovy list be enough 'evidence' for the intent of the community to move to Apache? Then it would possible be sufficient to archive those messages for posterity (but I'm no lawyer) Martijn On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Guillaume Laforge glafo...@gmail.com wrote: So ultimately, what do we do? Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to sign something on behalf of the Groovy community or something like that? Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention as a whole? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. My understanding is that any groovy contributor, including the 5 initial commiters, can grant the existing code base to The ASF, per the AL 2.0 license. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
So ultimately, what do we do? Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to sign something on behalf of the Groovy community or something like that? Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention as a whole? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Hi, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:58 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: ...It would be good to have at least some codified guidelines somewhere on a wiki page or something that will help newly-incubating projects in similar situations My view is that -All committers need an iCLA -Software that comes from outside the ASF needs to come with a software grant -cCLA is between people and their employers, the ASF only stores them Is there more to it? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: My view is that -All committers need an iCLA I think that we can agree upon and nobody is refuting that. -Software that comes from outside the ASF needs to come with a software grant This is the sticking point. How many grants do we need? Who files them? Can one person file one and say I am speaking on behalf of the entire team? -cCLA is between people and their employers, the ASF only stores them Again, I don't think this is under review either. Perhaps I should have not included them in the title, but the guidelines I'm asking for need to include all of these documents. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:59 AM James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Let's continue here. It seems there is some confusion around this particular subject, because I don't know that we really reached a point where we said this is what we're SUPPOSED to do in this situation with TinkerPop. We just did what we thought was best at the time. It would be good to have at least some codified guidelines somewhere on a wiki page or something that will help newly-incubating projects in similar situations. Since I do some assistance with secretary@, I don't mind helping with the documentation. I will be one of the main ones interested in said guidelines. :) Umm, I'm actually surprised to hear this. i think the IP Clearance page on the incubator is clear enough with regard to how to proceed, in addition to the general Incubation policy. Finally the initial code dump should be referenced as well. http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? John On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:54 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Emmanuel, I apologize for hijacking your thread. Let me part (and create a new thread) by saying Welcome, Groovy! James On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Bertrand, It took me a second, but I think I found some threads of interest: https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/board/201502.mbox/% 3CCABD8fLVxK8jRT-Rdut9xC2RnHmQ4v9yywe4owNf=98ghdyk...@mail.gmail.com%3E https://mail-search.apache.org/members/private-arch/ operations/201501.mbox/%3CC149FC5F-04FF-41EC-B741- f7958357a...@oracle.com%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- general/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke4LnWMv1zf8cy3GP3prp- r91WAEe2xi_FAuS=olmh...@mail.gmail.com%3E As you can see, we (by that I probably mean me) caused somewhat of a dust-up wrt TinkerPop's grant to the ASF. James On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:03 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: We need to make sure we get these guidelines nailed down, because that is not the advice we got when doing Tinker pop Do you have archive links to the relevant discussions? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself.
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Would the discussion on the dev@groovy list be enough 'evidence' for the intent of the community to move to Apache? Then it would possible be sufficient to archive those messages for posterity (but I'm no lawyer) Martijn On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Guillaume Laforge glafo...@gmail.com wrote: So ultimately, what do we do? Do I (current Groovy project lead, thus project representative) need to sign something on behalf of the Groovy community or something like that? Or we just skip this step altogether since that's the community's intention as a whole? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote: If a single legal entity has the copyright, the entity makes a grant. If the code was built by a large community under the apache license, there's no one to make a grant. 'The community' expressing its desire to move to Apache is enough. This is an edge case of the principle that we only accept code when the copyright owner has a positive intent to contribute it; there's no way to test that for everyone who ever made a 2-line patch. Reference Subversion, I think. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Cédric Champeau cedric.champ...@gmail.com wrote: In the case of groovy, does Pivotal own it or does someone else own it? Nobody owns it. If I look at https://github.com/groovy/groovy-core/blob/master/NOTICE it indicates that an entity known as The Groovy community owns it, in which case the SGA should probably come from them, no? Or is The Groovy community not a legal entity? The Groovy community is not a legal entity. A lot of people contributed to Groovy already, and in the Groovy ecosystem, the community is a notion larger than the language itself. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) That has always been my understanding as well. That said, while not blocking Groovy entrance into the incubator, is there any way we can get an official blessing from somebody on legal@ and document this edge case? Hasn't VP Legal already answered this question; in this thread? How much more official do you expect to get? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: ...what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing ASF project?... Following as much of our maturity model [1] as possible helps - in this case I think footnote 5 is particularly relevant: In Apache projects, the ASF owns the copyright for the collective work, i.e. the project's releases. Contributors retain copyright on their contributions but grant the ASF a perpetual copyright license for them. (5) Similarly, the owner of an external project should make sure it owns sufficient rights on its contributions to sign our Software Grant. Which also means that the owner must be clearly defined. -Bertrand [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:03 AM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) That has always been my understanding as well. That said, while not blocking Groovy entrance into the incubator, is there any way we can get an official blessing from somebody on legal@ and document this edge case? Hasn't VP Legal already answered this question; in this thread? How much more official do you expect to get? Sorry if I missed it. Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else, just for a future reference). Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
IANAL, but this is what I learned when prepping code donations: 1) Every line of code is owned by some entity (a person or other legal entity) 2) The person who owned it (may be different from the person who wrote it) and added it to the collection of code did so under some terms. 3) If those terms do not explicitly allow for perpetual licensing under AL, then permission must be given by the code owner for perpetual licensing under AL. The SGA is the official form to document that permission. If it were me, I’d accept emails and JIRAs from individual owners as well. So, if you start up something on GH, I’d make sure each contribution comes with documented permission in a similar way to how the ASF does it now: ICLAs and assumed permission from patch authors in the bug tracker. In an “open-source code base I prepped for donation, external contributors had to sign a very different ICLA giving up their rights to the $Corp that controlled the code. Then $Corp could donate it via SGA (the code was under MPL). For Groovy, I agree with those that say the SGA doesn’t really add much, although I suppose you could fret about whether everyone who had contributed code by the time of the switch from BSD to AL authorized it via their contributor agreement or some other way. I’d go with whatever is easier: allowing an exception to having an SGA at all, or picking some person or set of people to sign one. -Alex On 3/26/15, 9:42 AM, P. Taylor Goetz ptgo...@gmail.com wrote: This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the back of my head for a while… If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF), but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project (ALv2 license from day 1), would a Software Grant and/or IP clearance be required? Put another way, what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing ASF project? The documentation for the IP clearance template [1] states: Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository must be processed like this, even if the external developer is an ASF committer.” To me that sounds like any new module, or even a sufficiently large pull request, requires IP clearance. If that’s the case, I would expect the clearance document list [2] to be much longer than it is, and have more ASF projects represented there, especially some of the faster growing ones. -Taylor [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html [2] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:17 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to get every last copyright owner to sign it, and if you can't get them all on board you have a mess on your hands that will have to be dealt with. In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) Separate from the legal aspect, we have a social tradition at Apache of only accepting voluntary contributions. This prevents social disharmony if somebody doesn't want their contribution to go to a project hosted at the ASF. For Groovy, I agree with Benson. We already have sufficient informal evidence that the Groovy community at large has granted social approval for the move to Apache. The software grant does not change much about the legal status of the codebase. Let's not get hung up on who has to sign it. Right, but this thread (renamed) isn't about Groovy. What I was trying to do is tease out more information about these sorts of situations, so that we can maybe put together some clear documentation. If that documentation says when this situation comes up, please ask for help as they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, then that's fine. If this were cut and dry, we probably wouldn't be 18 messages deep into this thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else, just for a future reference). Here: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: ...For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the Groovy Core Team. If we could get the initial committers (who ARE the Core team) to also sign, that would be even better... -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...Could you please provide an URL (if for nothing else, just for a future reference). Here: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: ...For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the Groovy Core Team. If we could get the initial committers (who ARE the Core team) to also sign, that would be even better... As I said, this is perfect for Groovy. We can move forward on-boarding the project. What I was looking for is a more general statement along the lines of what Benson has provided earlier on this thread, but coming from a VP of legal. This is for the purposes of documenting it for future projects coming to ASF. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
This seems like an appropriate thread to raise a question that’s been in the back of my head for a while… If a new project is created on github (or elsewhere — i.e. outside of the ASF), but with the intention that it would be contributed to an existing ASF project (ALv2 license from day 1), would a Software Grant and/or IP clearance be required? Put another way, what are the best practices to follow when creating a new project, outside the ASF, with the goal of eventually contributing that work to an existing ASF project? The documentation for the IP clearance template [1] states: Any code that was developed outside of the ASF SVN repository must be processed like this, even if the external developer is an ASF committer.” To me that sounds like any new module, or even a sufficiently large pull request, requires IP clearance. If that’s the case, I would expect the clearance document list [2] to be much longer than it is, and have more ASF projects represented there, especially some of the faster growing ones. -Taylor [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html [2] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:17 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to get every last copyright owner to sign it, and if you can't get them all on board you have a mess on your hands that will have to be dealt with. In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) Separate from the legal aspect, we have a social tradition at Apache of only accepting voluntary contributions. This prevents social disharmony if somebody doesn't want their contribution to go to a project hosted at the ASF. For Groovy, I agree with Benson. We already have sufficient informal evidence that the Groovy community at large has granted social approval for the move to Apache. The software grant does not change much about the legal status of the codebase. Let's not get hung up on who has to sign it. Right, but this thread (renamed) isn't about Groovy. What I was trying to do is tease out more information about these sorts of situations, so that we can maybe put together some clear documentation. If that documentation says when this situation comes up, please ask for help as they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, then that's fine. If this were cut and dry, we probably wouldn't be 18 messages deep into this thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On 26/03/15 16:36, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: the project. What I was looking for is a more general statement along the lines of what Benson has provided earlier on this thread, but coming from a VP of legal. This is for the purposes of documenting it for future projects coming to ASF. From where I'm sitting, I think that the best legal can do is say: For Groovy, a general signoff on behalf of the Groovy Community is sufficient, but the ideal is for the major contributors to Groovy, and the initial committers to the Apache project, and the Groovy Core Team, and any other stake holders to also signoff on the transfer. Groovy has used AL 2.0 since 2003. That means a decade of code that is AL 2.0 licensed. A license that more or less allows The Apache Foundation to foster the code, regardless of the committers preferences. (The Apache Way considers the committer's preferences to be primary, but even in an adversarial situation, The Apache Foundation would not be in breach of the license.) That scenario is a whole different ball game from a project that had no legal organizational structure ^1 and had changed the license from GPL 3.0 to AL 2.0 less than six months before the project applied to The Apache Foundation as an incubator project. Both of those are different from an organization that had a legal structure, and changed the license from GPL 3.0 to AL 2.0 less than one month before the project applied to The Apache Foundation as an incubator project. In terms of documenting things for future projects coming to ASF, then what is needed is: # Specific project. @ What license it was under prior to applying for incubation: % How long it had used that license for; % Previous licenses that the code was distributed under; @ How the project was governed: % Legal organizational structure, if any; % Informal structure; @ Source Code: % How it was contributed; % How it was merged into the project; % Formal requirements, prior to accepting code; % Informal requirements, prior to accepting code; % How code becomes orphaned; % How contributed code is rejected; % How contributed code is accepted; @ What combination of ICLA, CCLA, and SGA was used: % Formal statements from Legal about the specific transfer; % informal statements from Legal about the specific transfer; I've probably missed a couple of important datapoints. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. ^1: By legal organizational structure, I mean an organization that has no paperwork saying it is incorporated. Government issued paperwork that says Unincorporated Non-Profit Organization, is a legal organizational structure, albeit rare, and poorly understood. jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead / representative) can fill in the form, and say on behalf of the Groovy community, I grant the rights to the ASF? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. My understanding is that any groovy contributor, including the 5 initial commiters, can grant the existing code base to The ASF, per the AL 2.0 license. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
I really have no opinion on the matter (IANAL). I'm just a virtual paper pusher, but I did want to have a clear understanding of the requirements so that when folks ask us on secretary@, we can guide them to the right place or give them the right advice. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Guillaume Laforge glafo...@gmail.com wrote: So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead / representative) can fill in the form, and say on behalf of the Groovy community, I grant the rights to the ASF? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@gmail.com wrote: I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. My understanding is that any groovy contributor, including the 5 initial commiters, can grant the existing code base to The ASF, per the AL 2.0 license. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Guillaume Laforge Groovy Project Manager Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Social: @glaforge http://twitter.com/glaforge / Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Le 26/03/15 14:43, Guillaume Laforge a écrit : So, in summary, can we all agree that I (Groovy projet lead / representative) can fill in the form, and say on behalf of the Groovy community, I grant the rights to the ASF? Jim said Just do it !... Let's discuss about the legal aspect there, but I'd like such a discussion to be disconnected from the Groovy incubation. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
Le 26/03/15 15:11, Upayavira a écrit : On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. My understanding is that any groovy contributor, including the 5 initial commiters, can grant the existing code base to The ASF, per the AL 2.0 license. My IANAL take: Almost, but not quite :-) No granting is required. The AL2.0 is a license that allows the ASF to do with it what it wants to do. Only the owner of the code can “grant” additional privileges. As we’ve noted, that’s an unclear thing. No-one has the right to speak on behalf of the many contributors to the original codebase without asking their permission first. Fortunately, we don’t need to do that :-) We can just import the code. That's my understanding too. But a grant is required for incubation... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to the SGA at the time. For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the Groovy Core Team. If we could get the initial committers (who ARE the Core team) to also sign, that would be even better. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:22 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything special' about this situation that makes this appropriate? If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to get every last copyright owner to sign it, and if you can't get them all on board you have a mess on your hands that will have to be dealt with. In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) Separate from the legal aspect, we have a social tradition at Apache of only accepting voluntary contributions. This prevents social disharmony if somebody doesn't want their contribution to go to a project hosted at the ASF. For Groovy, I agree with Benson. We already have sufficient informal evidence that the Groovy community at large has granted social approval for the move to Apache. The software grant does not change much about the legal status of the codebase. Let's not get hung up on who has to sign it. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) That has always been my understanding as well. That said, while not blocking Groovy entrance into the incubator, is there any way we can get an official blessing from somebody on legal@ and document this edge case? For Groovy, I agree with Benson. We already have sufficient informal evidence that the Groovy community at large has granted social approval for the move to Apache. The software grant does not change much about the legal status of the codebase. Let's not get hung up on who has to sign it. +1 to this. It feels to me we have a consensus here for Groovy to proceed. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 01:31 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: I think we are going a bit too far here. Groovy has been under the AL 2.0 license since it moves from BSD (back in 2003). AL 2.0 says : Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. My understanding is that any groovy contributor, including the 5 initial commiters, can grant the existing code base to The ASF, per the AL 2.0 license. My IANAL take: Almost, but not quite :-) No granting is required. The AL2.0 is a license that allows the ASF to do with it what it wants to do. Only the owner of the code can “grant” additional privileges. As we’ve noted, that’s an unclear thing. No-one has the right to speak on behalf of the many contributors to the original codebase without asking their permission first. Fortunately, we don’t need to do that :-) We can just import the code. Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything special' about this situation that makes this appropriate? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to the SGA at the time. For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the Groovy Core Team. If we could get the initial committers (who ARE the Core team) to also sign, that would be even better. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:22 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: And that covers us from a legal standpoint? Is there anything special' about this situation that makes this appropriate? There is nothing legal to cover here. Since all the code is AL 2.0, legally, we are fine. The grant is (a) a bit of a belt atop the suspenders, and (b) a nod to our 'cultural' desire to see an intention for code to flow into the foundation in addition to the legal right. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: There is no official, legal entity which can make the actual transfer. When we created the ASF, out of the Apache Group, all members of the Apache Group signed the xfer which amounted to the SGA at the time. For Groovy, it is sufficient for G to sign on behalf of the Groovy Core Team. If we could get the initial committers (who ARE the Core team) to also sign, that would be even better. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: ICLA/CCLA/SGA guidelines for GitHub or multi-entity projects was: [Groovy] Next steps...
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: If you have a codebase which was not previously under the ALv2 -- say it was either proprietary or available under a different open source license -- then the Software Grant is hugely important from a legal standpoint. You have to get every last copyright owner to sign it, and if you can't get them all on board you have a mess on your hands that will have to be dealt with. In contrast, from a legal standpoint, a signed Software Grant doesn't change much when the codebase is already under the ALv2. (Quite possibly it has zero effect but I'd need to ask a lawyer about the text of the Software Grant form to confirm that.) Separate from the legal aspect, we have a social tradition at Apache of only accepting voluntary contributions. This prevents social disharmony if somebody doesn't want their contribution to go to a project hosted at the ASF. For Groovy, I agree with Benson. We already have sufficient informal evidence that the Groovy community at large has granted social approval for the move to Apache. The software grant does not change much about the legal status of the codebase. Let's not get hung up on who has to sign it. Right, but this thread (renamed) isn't about Groovy. What I was trying to do is tease out more information about these sorts of situations, so that we can maybe put together some clear documentation. If that documentation says when this situation comes up, please ask for help as they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, then that's fine. If this were cut and dry, we probably wouldn't be 18 messages deep into this thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
