On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> i've committed a stripped down template and moved the prose into a
>> guide. this guide is just copy ATM
>
> With all due and sincere respect to Roy, the current IP Clearance form was
> d
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > The Legal Committee does not appear to have any concerns over Roy's
proposed
> > changes.
>
> i don't recall being officially asked
>
I was referring to
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] In any event, you've propo
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>> > Given that we now have a Legal Committee, any substantive revision of
>> that
>>> > form should be
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> If the IP template should be RTC then it should be moved into the
>> policy area. But IMO the incubator is not the right place for
>> normative legal policy: the legal committee should ma
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> If the IP template should be RTC then it should be moved into the
> policy area. But IMO the incubator is not the right place for
> normative legal policy: the legal committee should maintain policy.
It probably embodies both procedure and policy. And I agree with
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> >
> > > One more;
> > >
> > > Determine www.a.o/licenses/exports implications
> > > for notifications.
> > >
> >
> > No. That is not part of IP clearance, sorry, and I will not re
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:31 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still think JIRA'izing this is overkill :)
it's just a way of parking the issue for now
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTE
I'm sorry - I had mixed up Noel's comments with Sam (which is not an easy
thing to do once you know them both ;-)
Please don't worry about plugging legal into the loop until you are done.
Then just send a notice to legal-discuss@ with a link to the page. It's
really that simple, they trust "us"
I had a catastrophic failure of my mail server yesterday (the / partition
failed to the point where fsck could not recover). Just catching up, using a
backup server, and had to go to the archives to find the traffic:
Robert wrote:
> If the IP template should be RTC then it should be moved into
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> >
> > > One more;
> > >
> > > Determine www.a.o/licenses/exports implications
> > > for notifications.
> > >
> >
> > No. That is not part of IP clearance, sorry, and I will not re
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
One more;
Determine www.a.o/licenses/exports implications
for notifications.
No. That is not part of IP clearance, sorry, and I will not repeat all
of the process associated with being a chair within something as trivial
as a secretarial function (connecting t
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:04 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert's separation of guide and template was a good start, though my
> version of the template is much smaller.
IMHO the only way that documentation gets written here is by first
draft then collective improvement
On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:55 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
The required IP clearance
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> > > I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
> > > that insists on
On 4/23/08, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> > i've committed a stripped down template and moved the prose into a
> > guide. this guide is just copy ATM
>
> With all due and sincere respect to Roy, the current IP Clearance form was
> done in conjunction
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> i've committed a stripped down template and moved the prose into a
> guide. this guide is just copy ATM
With all due and sincere respect to Roy, the current IP Clearance form was
done in conjunction with the Board. Over the past several years it has been
modified s
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
> > that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
> > decisions that the Incubator is not responsible fo
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
The required IP clearance questions should be:
Date:
Identify the Contribution
Right, for those it makes sense to me...
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with you, especially for projects entering
incubator.
The IP clearance template isn't generally applicable to projects entering
the Incubator. It is for processing code grants to existing project
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> maybe the incubator doesn't need to check that a PMC is conducting
> it's affairs correctly. not clear how much oversight the board
> expects the incubator to perform for IP clearances.
IIRC, some but not extensive. Just check to make sure that the IP clearance
is
> For what it's worth, I agree with you, especially for projects entering
incubator.
The IP clearance template isn't generally applicable to projects entering
the Incubator. It is for processing code grants to existing projects.
--- Noel
---
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
> decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
> Where on earth did this crap come from?
According to SVN
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearanc
e/ip-cleara
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ROTFLMHO.. So tell us how you really feel Roy. :) For what it's worth, I
> agree with you, especially for projects entering incubator.
submit a patch ;-)
- robert
--
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
> that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
> decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
> The required IP clearan
ROTFLMHO.. So tell us how you really feel Roy. :) For what it's
worth, I agree with you, especially for projects entering incubator.
Scott
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
I've wasted too much time today on the stupid IP Clearance template
that insists on asking a bunch of irrelevant questions about
decisions that the Incubator is not responsible for making.
The required IP clearance questions should be:
Date:
Identify the Contribution:
Identify the Contri
28 matches
Mail list logo
