Hi Jim, In these cases, we are not creating a new PMC around these code bases, we are placing it under control of an existing PMC. Plus, there is effectively no community left. Nobody has made a change to these projects in 4 years. A major contributor from each project has indicated their desire to have our PMC take control, but they are unable to hunt down every past contributor and get their permission, so the question really is about whether the ASF would permit an existing PMC to take over change-control for a code base when we don't have permission for every line of code. Since you are VP-Legal, I a willing to abide by your answer. If the answer is a flat "No", then fine, we can continue working with it as 3rd party, but if the answer is "Yes, but understand the risks" as Ted said, then the PMC is empowered to make the risk/reward trade-off.
Also can I double-check on your statement of "include, bundle or fork a codebase for our usage within a project"? I assume that "usage" here means "placing into the repos for modification" vs straight-up bundling where we download some upstream dependency as-is. I wasn't aware we were supposed to ask for as-is bundling. Thanks -Alex On 11/27/15, 7:08 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >As with many other things, there is a difference between what we CAN >do and what we SHOULD do. > >We CAN take whatever permissively licensed codebase we want, basically, >and create an Apache PMC around it. All we would be doing is what >we allow others to do w/ our projects. As long as we abide by the >conditions of the License, we are fine. > >However, we have a long standing tradition of always asking >permission whenever we even include, bundle or fork a codebase >for our usage within a project. If we were to take over an >entire codebase in order to create a project and community around >it, we should really ensure that the original project and esp. >the community are A-OK with that, support that and will help >with that. > >> On Nov 27, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think the chances of anyone making so much as a squeak in those >>projects is close to zero. >> >> Being that’s the case, my takeaway is that it’s ok to take them. >> >> Harbs >> >> On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/26/15, 4:47 PM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are two issues, one is the SGA and the other is the contributor >>>>> license agreements (ICLA) that are desirable to make sure that all >>>>>of the >>>>> contributors understood that they were contributing under ASL. >>>> >>>> OK, so I think you are saying that we can't take over change control >>>>of >>>> these projects without paperwork from every contributor? That's what >>>>I >>>> was thinking as well, and why these donations may never get completed >>>> because several of the past contributors have moved on to other >>>>things and >>>> aren't following those projects anymore. >>> >>> >>> I don't think that this is hard and fast, but unless I was pretty sure >>>that >>> nobody would rise from the dead and bitch and moan, I would be a bit >>> cautious. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >
