Thanks for your help on this Curt. I'm sorry we've been negligent on
ASF process around bringing in code, and we will fix that with proper
votes on the already included code and follow ASF procedure for new
imports.
-Damien
On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Curt Arnold wrote:
Noah Slater | 9 Aug 12:42 wrote:
I think this is a poor summary. Your thread was taken seriously,
and people responded, but as far as I knew, discussion was still
ongoing. The way you've worded it could lead people into thinking
that you were ignored.
Did not mean to imply that it was ignored, just that the suspect
commit was not reverted until the issue of the third-party code was
resolved.
I'm having problems pointing to a definitive statement that says
that these are things that an Apache project doesn't do, but am
struggling to come up with anything definitive.
You're implying that people have disagreed with you, which is
misleading. One of our committers has already requested the SGAs
for erlang-oauth and ibrowse, and is looking into possible
trademark issues. He's told me this morning that he's intending to
call a vote as required by the import procedure, once he's sorted
this out.
I was implying that I'm beyond the level that I can speak
authoritatively and that I could not readily find an explicit
statement on the policy. Depending on the third-party components
with those licenses is pretty clearly acceptable but having its full
source expanded and open for modifications seemed over the line
based on my recollections of discussions here. There is a boundary
somewhere in the middle, but exactly where that is I'm uncertain.
I have not seem discussion on a potential software grant (SGA) or
vote on the project mailing list.
Niclas Hedhman | 9 Aug 12:54 wrote
Curt,
Two things come to my mind immediately, and this is without reading
your references (might do that when I'm back at a computer).
1. CouchDb graduated long ago, and is no longer the concern of the
Incubator in particular. If you have legal concerns that the
CouchDb doesn't want to address, I suggest you seek further info
from legal-discuss, and if it isn't of legal nature, go to the
Board or Membership with the concerns...
2. Speaking from a legal perspective, there is nothing "at Apache"
that prevents people for doing source code copy, in small or large
(a.k.a forks), PROVIDED that the license allows it. I saw you
mentioning BSD (modified I hope) and MIT X, and those licenses
require attribution and few other things, so if that is done, there
is no legal contention here. Now you said that Apache doesn't
fork... well the reason behind that (I think) is that we are all
lazy, it takes a lot of energy to maintain forks. And we don't do
it to compete with the original project, out of courtesy... is that
your complaint?
I appreciate your concerns, just target the right audience and
preferably with the invitation of the CouchDb PMC... -- Niclas
It was a bad call on my part on the mailing list.
On the forking, even if the original code was ASL licensed, it
should still need to go through the Incubator (either as a podlet or
as a software grant) prior to an ASF project releasing a forked
version. I would assume that it would require even more oversight
for a non-ASL licensed to be forked by the ASF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
