On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>> It's not hard to do a grant
>>
>> From the contributor side, it can be very, very, hard and can
>> potentially take a long time. The bigger the company, the harder it
>> can be.
>> Many ma
I agree with you, Grant.
In the query parser scenario: filling out the software grant and
providing the tar+md5, which was the only part Apache required, was
maybe 5% of all the internal legal and approval work we had to do. Even
if Apache didn't require the grant, we'd still do this kind of in
FWIW, I'm not trying to make it harder to donate, but I do want to
make sure anything we accept is legally correct. Thus, I'd rather err
on the side of caution. I suspect most people would rather have code
that has less features and is legally correct versus more features and
the code be
On Jul 11, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I personally don't get what all the fuss is about.
I'm simply trying to avoid having rules I view as too strict (if
interpreted strictly) enshrined as policy.
It's not hard to do a grant
From the contributor side, it can be very, very, hard
>> I personally don't get what all the fuss is about.
>>>I'm simply trying to avoid having rules I view as too strict (if
>>>interpreted strictly) enshrined as policy.
And I'm just trying to get something of an understanding of this stuff. I
feel like committers should have a good idea of the rul
> I personally don't get what all the fuss is about.
I'm simply trying to avoid having rules I view as too strict (if
interpreted strictly) enshrined as policy.
> It's not hard to do a grant
>From the contributor side, it can be very, very, hard and can
potentially take a long time. The bigger t
From http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
"One of the Incubator's roles is to ensure that proper attention is
paid to intellectual property. From time to time, an external codebase
is brought into the ASF that is not a separate incubating project but
still represents a substa
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I think it is pretty clear that when the code lives in the public somewhere
> else (i.e. source forge or Google code, etc.) it needs to go through a
> grant.
It's not clear to me... I think it's just another factor to consider.
It also matt
Hi Grant,
> I think it is pretty clear that when the code lives in the public
> somewhere else (i.e. source forge or Google code, etc.) it needs to go
> through a grant.
>
> That being said, I'm not particularly concerned about Trie, for the
> record.
Trie was in Sourceforge's SVN as
I think it is pretty clear that when the code lives in the public
somewhere else (i.e. source forge or Google code, etc.) it needs to go
through a grant. Likewise, it is often the best approach when a whole
code dump from a company or individual is brought in. Agreed, it is a
bit weird wh
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Regarding the software grant debate in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1567
> IMO, it's pretty subjective what needs a software grant, and I don't
> think we should throw up any hard'n'fast rules about it. The bottom
> line
11 matches
Mail list logo
