-----Original Message-----
From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hyrum.wright@wandisco.com]
<
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3cCAJjMeYMb0+uCrbuaX83b1NSbhq8G3SfzafXUkfrKjxi=ubQzQA@mail.gmail.com%3e>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:06
To: general@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
Cc: Mark Struberg; Ian Wild; Greg Stein; hwright@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> Uh, here's the TRAC License: <http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracLicense>.
>
> You have to do what it says. The language is very simple. So is the
> Copyright notice.
>
> If this is the codebase that you propose to be the foundation of Bloodhound
> development, I suspect that an SGA (Software Grant Agreement) from Edgewall
> Software is preferred in order to have it be licensable by Apache under the
> ALv2. If an SGA is possible, it would deal with the patent issue that has
> been raised on this thread. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/#grants>.
"preferred" or "required"?
<orcmid>
I said preferred because I don't know where the line is.
A substantial body of work is being brought over and it
seems to me that it should be required, but I'm not the
authority. However, to the extent that this draft is
authoritative, I would use it for guidance:
<http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-ip-clearance>.
</orcmid>
I'll also note that small bits of the Trac test suite are already
being distributed in ASF releases of Subversion and hosted in our
public repo. See:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/NOTICE
and
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/python/tests/trac/test.py
Subversion still maintains the required attribution per the Trac
License, but also adds the ALv2. This was a point of discussion
during the Subversion incubation, but was vetted and approved and has
been the status quo for over 2 years.
<orcmid>
I have no reason to believe that the SVN usage is a precedent for
the Bloodhound situation, nor vice versa. I'm not touching that.
</orcmid>
> I have no idea how much the SGA is a requirement for the incubator proposal
> moving forward. Your champion or proposed mentors should know. I recommend
> that be figured out ASAP. How that will be handled might need to be added
> to the incubator proposal, also.
What specific questions would you like to see addressed in the proposal?
<orcmid>
I think the need for an SGA from Edgewall should be identified
as a key requirement in being able to have a successful IP
Clearance. This is not a small amount of BSD code, it is the
foundation for the Bloodhound project.
It would also be good to indicate in the proposal whether the
copyright holders have expressed any willingness to provide such
an agreement. This strikes me as a material issue for incubation.
</orcmid>
> - Dennis
>
> If you end up needing a plan B, it might be appropriate to move where
> further development under the BSD license is possible. SourceForge might be
> an useful choice. SourceForge offers Trac as an available feature for
> projects, and it also supports SVN as one of its repository services. (I
> only mention that because I was looking into the SourceForge 2.0 beta
> recently and I have some small projects there.)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
<
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201112.mbox/%3cCADmm+KcJGtTeOtH9wz-kfMKGkFgvtEmT9RwkgoNU0aZ+V2SMMg@mail.gmail.com%3e>
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 18:38
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Mark Struberg; Ian Wild; Greg Stein
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Bloodhound
>
> I suggest legal-discuss@ is involved to answer it. Although it is Cat
> A license, I don't think it is fully kosher, as we promise that the
> original contributor hasn't submarined any patents, but BSD doesn't
> state this. Maybe it is a tiny point, but more eyes from
> legal-discuss@ won't hurt...
It would surprise me if this question isn't already answered. In fact, it is:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
I humbly submit that reopening the question with legal-discuss@ would
be disrespectful of their time.
<orcmid>
I agree. There is enough information to do the right thing.
Be careful though. Being a dependency to an Apache product
does not alleviate requirements for IP clearance.
Inclusion within an Apache project does not mean that the
Apache project notice can be substituted without appropriate
SGAs or iCLAs. It seems to me that the IP Clearance guidelines
are clearly applicable to the Trac/Bloodhound case.
This policy provides useful concrete guidance:
<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html>.
</orcmid>
-Hyrum
[ ... ]
No comments:
Post a Comment