incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2018 02:40:46 GMT

Is OpenZipkin a formal entity?

What about Lookout who also had a fork (according to the references)?

At Twitter you might try Remy DeCausemaker.


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Adrian Cole <> wrote:
> Hi, John
> Thanks for the input. So, I would hazard a guess that Twitter folks
> would like to help with this. I'm not sure who would want to hunt
> through the management chain to find someone to reverse-own a decision
> made 3 years ago, though! Regardless, on my part, I'll see if I can
> find a champion inside Twitter to resurrect and SGA.
> Best,
> -A
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:36 AM John D. Ament <> wrote:
>> Thanks Adrian.  Some comments/banter below.
>> Migrating a repository from one org to another does not require an SGA.  If
>> it did, we would not be able to have code living in our repos that had
>> headers other than the ASF standard headers (e.g. BSD licenses, or Apache
>> License w/ different copyright statements).  The SGA is used to replace the
>> headers with the standard ASF headers.  We should not block migrating the
>> repositories over while the SGA/ICLA is worked out.
>> Resolving the SGA/ICLA situation would block graduation - we should ensure
>> that the provenance is in place, which is part of the incubation process.
>> This doesn't need to be solved on day 1, but by the time the podling is
>> ready to graduate.
>> With that said, from a pure foundation standpoint it would be ideal to
>> receive a SGA from Twitter.  Even if the current code doesn't match the
>> code at the time of Twitter's conversion, it gives us a better IP history
>> for the codebase to answer questions and deal with any potential problems
>> that may come up along the way.  However, to be realistic I believe if we
>> receive an ICLA from the primary contributors based on [1], that should
>> satisfy enough providence of the codebase, in addition to the contribution
>> process that Adrian has pointed out below.
>> Thoughts?
>> John
>> [1]:
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:25 PM Adrian Cole <> wrote:
>>> There was a process involved at Twitter when we first moved it to the
>>> openzipkin organization. It was 100% clear that this was an act for
>>> the community to control the code.  Senior management were involved
>>> After that, all the repositories had contributing files like the below
>>> indicating that all changes we to be redistributable under ASL
>>> <>
>>> There was no collection of contributor agreements beyond this. Most of
>>> the code except save some UI assets have been completely rewritten
>>> since the migration to OpenZipkin a few years back.
>>> Hope these details help,
>>> -A
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM Craig Russell <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Mick,
>>>> tldr; with my Incubator PMC hat on, "all that needs to be done" is to
>>> establish that all of the copyright owners sign either a Software Grant or
>>> an ICLA.
>>>> In order to establish that Apache has the rights to the code base, every
>>> line of code needs to have its provenance researched.
>>>> Looking at the proposal
>>> it seems like most of the code is in the github repository
>>> . Is there any code coming from
>>> another source? Was the original code from Twitter granted to OpenZipkin?
>>> Is there any documentation of that copyright transfer? Does Twitter retain
>>> any rights?
>>>> The capitalization of the "Initial Source" section is a bit strange. But
>>> can we assume that the only committers to the project are listed at
>>> ?
>>>> The proposal also says that "All source code is copyrighted to 'The
>>> OpenZipkin Authors', to which the existing core community(members list in
>>> Initial Committers) has the rights to re-assign to the ASF. "
>>>> It looks like there were many people who contributed a few lines of
>>> code. Did they sign anything like a Contributor Agreement that grants their
>>> copyright to The OpenZipkin Authors?
>>>> Craig
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:58 PM, Mick Semb Wever <> wrote:
>>>>> It's come up that the migration of the github Zipkin repositories to
>>> ASF requires either a signed SGA or a sign-off from the Secretary. Chris
>>> raised this on `INFRA-16989 – Zipkin incubator project request for the
>>> GitHub repositories moving service`.
>>>>> I was under the impression that if the Copyright was already held by
>>> the community, it is held by 'The OpenZipkin Authors', that the ICLA from
>>> all those authors would suffice and a SGA not be required. And it's news to
>>> me that this would also require a sign-off from the ASF Secretary.
>>>>> What's the correct process here? who can help? should I forward the
>>> question to the Secretary?
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Mick
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>>>> <> <
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message