David, all, ----- Original Message ----- From: "David E. Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Jan 28, 2007, at 11:46 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > > > Jonathon, > > > > Just one word to be sure you understand your responsability by > > opening your "sandbox" to other users without contracts between you > > (hence creating a joint work as pointed out by Chris). You will > > have to get through this procedure > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > > Not necessarily. It is up to the committers to review this, but the > general guideline is to distinguish (as explained on that page and in > related documents) based on how and why it was developed.
After having read (or re-read) carefully this documents (including http://www.apache.org/licenses, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html, http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/community.txt, http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/software-grant.txt) I can't see how the "how and why" is striclty determined. Could you please explain this more clearly or give the exact links where to find such informations ? Moreover in http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/community.txt, I read <<... you agree to only submit a Contribution when you are the copyright owner of that Contribution or when you have obtained the owner's permission to make said Contribution on their behalf. It is your responsibility to notify the Foundation of any conditions that apply to the communication that might make it ineligible for Contribution...>> That's exactly what I intended to explain to Jonathon. My goal is not to annoy anybody with this kind of mails, including Joanthon of course. But to try to help Jonathon to understand the "sandbox problem". I know that this can be really boring (for my part I'm completly exhausted by those researches, notably on joint work issue) but I'm sure everybody understand the importance and scope. Finally, I know that this document is not yet official as it's explained on its top. But if I understand well it shall be soon as explained in http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/#clas) Please note also in http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/software-grant.txt <<...Licensor's patent grant above shall terminate with respect to any party that institutes patent litigation against the Licensor (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Software constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, as of the date such litigation is filed....>> > For example, if someone fixes a bug in OFBiz in almost any case if it > is contributed back then the how and why is pretty clear. The amount > of time that lapses between doing it an contributing it doesn't > really matter. > > > If you don't and don't tell us (commiters) you will be the sole > > responsable because of our good faith (not knowing that it comes not > > only from you). > > This is a dangerous idea Jacques. It is the responsibility of all > committers to make sure the source of the code is clear, especially > where it may have been developed independently and not intended to go > into OFBiz but someone else took it and contributed it. Under no > circumstances is it okay for that code to go into OFBiz, and it is > ultimately the responsibility of the PMC to take care of this, and > that responsibility is delegated to non-PMC committers (though PMC > members should still review commits and issues to check on this). What I wanted to point out is how a commiter may know that a contribution is from only one person of a group if that person don't tell it when proposing to include his work (with of course the eventual needed documents) ? This is just what may happen if sandbox usage becomes common. I know that all this may appear for some person too emphatic, but please think a bit about what may happen if OFBiz become more and more used and recognized... > > This is only my opininon and not commiters's or PMC's or even > > ASF's, of course. > > Hopefully what I wrote clears this up a bit. Again, the documents on > www.apache.org/dev clarify a lot of these issues. Yes thanks and I know that I have still to learn in this area. I hope to have been clear, please correct me if I'm missing or misunderstanding some points. Jacques > -David > > >
