If we use groovy as an example, a single contributor provided an SGA and signed it himself. no other contributors signed the SGA.
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:01 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Renaming thread since my question doesn't have anything to do with Kudu. > > I'm trying to resolve Greg's "opt-out" response, vs Roy's "blessing of the > original authors" in the link to the archives Owen posted. I've always > assumed that the "blessing..." part meant that any non-ASF code base, even > ones under AL, had to come in with an SGA signed by ALL of the original > copyright holders. > > Specifically, there are two code bases under AL where the major > contributors have indicated that they would like our project to take over > change-control. These donations have been held up by trying to chase down > all of the folks who made smaller contributions and getting them to sign > an SGA. There really isn't any community around these code bases right > now, but our project is interested in them because under ASF practices, > they can at least get occasional attention without the major contributors > having to be involved. > > Is an SGA needed? If not, is there a recommended practice for providing > notification such that folks who want to opt-out can find out the > change-control for code base is moving to the ASF? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 11/24/15, 8:01 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <omal...@apache.org> wrote: > > >On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On 11/23/15, 8:23 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" > >> > <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> > > >> > >Alex, > >> > > > >> > >Please re-read my email. As I stated we don’t take code that > >> > >authors don’t want us to have. So far, we haven’t heard from any of > >> > >the authors on the incoming Kudu project that that’s the case. If > >> > >it’s not the case, we go by the license of the project which > >>stipulates > >> > >how code can be copied, modified, reused, etc. > >> > > >> > Yes, but my interpretation of your words is that folks have to opt > >>out, > >> > > >> > >> Correct: opt-out. > >> > >> Since this code is under ALv2, we can import it to the ASF under that > >> license. We have always done stuff like this, including other permissive > >> licenses. > >> > >> But this isn't simply importing a library, this is saying "the ASF is > >>now > >> the primary locus of development for >this< code." And that's where > >>people > >> can say, "woah. I hate you guys. don't develop my code there", and so we > >> nuke it. > >> > >> SGA/iCLA is to give us rights that we otherwise wouldn't have (ie. the > >>code > >> was under a different license). > >> > > > >It is worth looking back at the thread on Bloodhound > >< > http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_m > >box%2Fincubator-general%2F201201.mbox%2F%253C0F2EA54E-4419-428F-A604-46EF5 > >9C40469%2540gbiv.com > %253E&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG4tmh9dY86HFVyRZlTE66tCjvh > >Kg> > >. > > > >The important thing is that Apache doesn't fork communities. In this case, > >the community wants to move to Apache. That is great and should be > >allowed. > >They shouldn't need to get an explicit permission from each contributor > >over the years. > > > >.. Owen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
