Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
So, if a CCLA is filed naming the software, a separate SGA is *not*
neces
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
> CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
CCLA has been seen as required for individuals, working at the
company, to protect them from the company coming after them
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
The Jena podling has asked me. Their situation is that an HP copyright
is thought to cover all the 'corporate' code, and they wonder if there
is any reason for them to chase an SGA on t
On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Tad Glines
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
>>
>> The word "Wave" is far more generic than "TrafficServ
- Original Message
> From: Tad Glines
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > Yet, we have in the past had similar situations, wh
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Yet, we have in the past had similar situations, where we have not
> allowed this kind of position. In the end, you are now encouraging
> that Apache WAVE, Google WAVE and Niclas WAVE are totally fine,
> possibly not the same thing.
> Lucid
On Nov 26, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
>
>
> I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an
> issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away
> from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none
> of both is required.
Ye
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:07 +0100, "Bernd Fondermann"
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his
> >> google.com address. I imagine that if Googl
On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an
> issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away
> from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none
> of both is required.
Exactly,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:26, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann
> wrote:
>> PS: It would've been much better to first [DISCUSS] the proposal
>> before putting it up for vote.
>
> I don't see a [VOTE] here.
Ooops, you're right. - Well, in this case
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann
wrote:
> PS: It would've been much better to first [DISCUSS] the proposal
> before putting it up for vote.
I don't see a [VOTE] here.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
-
To unsubscribe,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his
>> google.com address. I imagine that if Google had a problem with it,
>> then he wouldn't be working there tomorrow :
+1
Mike
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Dan Peterson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We'd like to propose Wave for entry into the ASF incubator.
>
> The draft proposal is available at:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal
> (for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied below)
>
> A wave i
13 matches
Mail list logo
