incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <>
Subject Re: Too many licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow
Date Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:07:49 GMT


I have made some edits to the wiki on the Mechanisms for feedback 
section to clean up the
language, based on some of the misunderstanding and to reflect the 
discussion from the list
onto the wiki. Tried to keep it short, but can edit more in if required.


William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>> But to the extent that ASF contributors offer productive growth and
>>> formative input into the specification, the way this section is phrased
>>> is not acceptable.  If the contributor wish[es], and if under these terms
>>> their contributions merits participation, that contributor should either
>>> lead the ASF's direct involvement as the ASF spec liason (much as we've
>>> done within the JCP) or as an individual contributor.
>> I would love this.
> Glad to hear that, but until the proposal is revised it is simply a platitude.
> I phrased that as an either-or or both, but we need to know from the spec
> committee what would be acceptable.
> I'm very concerned, though, that not one mentor has spoken up and added any
> feedback on this objection...
> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>> My question came down to this; if someone offers a patch, which then suggests
>>> an improvement to the spec, does the ASL (which covers -everything- that is
>>> offered to the ASF) adequately correspond to the RLA terms to satisfy the
>>> spec committee?  If so there's no issue; in fact it would be sufficient to
>>> continue to accept contributions from ASF committers who have signed a CLA
>>> to the effect that everything they offer is covered.
>> Now that I understand what you are getting at - I really like the idea.
>> no idea if it is possible, but worth looking into - seems like it might work. 
>> We can work this with Cliff and see what we can come up during incubator
> I'm a bit concerned about the project's apparent attitude "accept us and then
> we'll work out the wrinkles, or not".  Even copyrights are already assigned
> as Apache Software Foundation when they are, in fact, not the ASF's yet.  And
> FWIW - copyright will become much simpler under the new practice; no more
> individual file copyright notices, one collective NOTICE, one LICENSE file.
> Most important, so I'll say this for the third time;
>>> The specific statement "In the same spirit of Apache, if an individual has
>>> shown understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the
>>> specification, a vote based on technical merit and understanding of the goals
>>> of the work can be initiated to have that parties Employer join the
>>> specification working group."
> has put off this effort on the wrong foot.  I hope this is addressed now, and
> not put off with some fuzzy "then we'll work out the details during incubation".
> It's not complicated, folks.  ASF projects consist of individuals.  Adding
> company affiliations after each of the initial committers names suggests, to
> some, that the day they move on to another company their contribution to the
> project ends.  We understand why Cliff did so for himself (so that there would
> be no misunderstanding that he has a vested interest, bravo), but that this
> was propagated to the entire initial list of committers is very troubling.
> The effort seems entirely too eager to brand the project as Apache, entirely
> ready to defend the status quo or try to cite ASF policy back at any objectors,
> and entirely uninterested in addressing a couple of things; how to start off
> on the right foot as a collaboration of willing developers (not employers)
> at the ASF.  That's the sense of what I'm reading - I'm not saying it's so.
> The enthusiasm is admirable, but the core issues need to be addressed before
> incubation begins.
> Address the crux of this please, the language of the spec feedback cycle and
> the spec body, and then let's all move *forward* to incubating the effort?
> The silence of the mentors on this makea me very concerned about their ability
> to adequately shape the evolution of this community.
> Bill
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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