Re: IP Clearance form re INCUBATOR-77

[Craig L Russell]

On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

On Aug 26, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

On 8/25/08, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm trying to resolve INCUBATOR-77 and I feel stuck on the wording in

the clearance template:
"Check and make sure that for all items included with the
                 distribution that is not under the Apache license,
we have
                 the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and
                 redistribute."
and
"Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the
                 project is covered by one or more of the following
approved
                 licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or
                 something with essentially the same terms."

The template's a guide rather than a normative document. The licenses
need to be audited and checked against current Apache policy (rather
than the examplars given).

Per the issue mentioned, there is an LGPL dependency right now that is

going to be resolved.  Thus, I am not sure what to do.  Can we fill
out this and proceed w/ the checking in the code, knowing that we
can't release it until this is resolved or can I truly not finish
filling out the IP clearance
(https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/local-lucene-solr.xml

replacing the problematic code.  My understanding of the ASF (and
based on Doug C.'s comment) is that we could commit as long as we

isn't neccessarily there

) until it is resolved? Part of me thinks, that if we commit, but not release, that we will get some user volunteers to take up the issue of don't release, but the clearance template seems to put up a gate that

IMHO the template is wrong and conflates concerns which are better
separated. Separation into a guide and a simple form would be much
better.

I think what you are saying, then, is that I can go forward and mark that the code in question will be removed before being released?

Craig

That's what I would suggest. Note the issue in the ip clearance form, and check in the code. There's a flag that the code can't be released with the LGPL components included but that's part of the release process, not the entrance process.

-Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature