incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandro Colorado <>
Subject Re: Apache Incubator Proposal
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2011 03:37:23 GMT
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <>wrote:

> On 6/1/2011 1:24 PM, wrote:
> > Ross Gardler <> wrote on 06/01/2011 12:21:23 PM:
> >
> >> There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why
> >> only two for such a large codebase?
> >
> > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list,
> developers
> > familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is
> our
> > OpenOffice based project).  But then we could have been criticized for
> the
> > proposal being too dominated by IBM.  It is clearly our intent to grow
> > this project, both from our corporate developers, but also by recruiting
> > new members to the project, including developers from related open source
> > projects (see my previous note)
> The ASF preference (which you already know) is for individual IBM
> developers
> to add themselves to the effort.  A large representation by IBM, or Novell,
> or any other part of the ecosystem is not itself a problem.  But there is
> an apathy towards individuals who are 'signed up' to a project, and who do
> not volunteer themselves.
> On a related note, is it Oracle's intent to prohibit participation at this
> ASF project, or are interested developers (particularly previous
> developers)
> permitted to participate on their own time?
> > From a practical perspective it would have been impossible to do all of
> > that recruitment without this proposal becoming public prematurely. So
> the
> > majority of the recruitment will occur during incubation.  We obviously
> > don't graduate from incubation with only two.  But it should be enough to
> > get the ball rolling.
> Understood.  Looking forward to Sam's response to the 'sign yourself up'
> discussion which Jim already responded to.
> > Oracle owns the copyright to the code and is is the one legally permitted
> > to contribute it under Apache 2.0 license.  This is because they required
> > copyright assignment to Sun/Oracle as part of their CLA for OpenOffice.
> So
> > they aggregated and owned all copyrights.  But that does not mean that
> > they were the sole developers on  And they are not the
> sole
> > contributors on this proposal.
> I've reviewed and the code
> providence
> doesn't seem to be a serious obstacle to entering incubation.  However,
> there
> is this;
>  Other Works
>  Our preference is always for contributions of editable work. But in those
>  cases where editable material is difficult to obtain, there are several
>  options; all presume you hold copyright in the work:
>    * You can sign the OCA, which covers all work (and not just code)
>      contributed to by you;
>    * If your country's laws allow it, you can make it public domain by
>      declaring as much in a signed document (check if it is possible,
> first!);
>      or
>    * You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License
> ("Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5").
>      We only accept work under this license that is non-editable and for
> which
>      there is no editable version that can be contributed to the project.

> This last item concerns me.  How much of the contribution is unusable due
> to the "Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5" tag, which would appear to be a category
> X
> license to ASF works?  (I couldn't find a corresponding Jira in the legal
> discuss tracker.)

The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I would
need to have that confirmed.

*Alexandro Colorado*
** EspaƱol

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message