[IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
Hi,

the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
Archive File Installer Extension.

- The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
- The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
- The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].

The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
the next 72 hours.

regards,

Karl


[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
[1] https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html

--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

John D. Ament-2
Hello,

Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if ICLAs/SGA
were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received from an
individual, which doesn't sound right.

John

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
> Archive File Installer Extension.
>
> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
>
> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
> the next 72 hours.
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
>
> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
> [1]
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
Hi John,

as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
Marz and the contribution. Does that help?

regards,

Karl

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if ICLAs/SGA
> were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received from an
> individual, which doesn't sound right.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
>> Archive File Installer Extension.
>>
>> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
>>
>> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
>> the next 72 hours.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>> [1]
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

John D. Ament-2
Karl,

CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has given
approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache under
ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
outside of an ICLA/SGA.

Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA associated
with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they are
licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license (irrespective of
the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license until
this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the right
document to get signed.

In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA involved
since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be applied
as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a loss of
provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing repository.

So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.

[1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if ICLAs/SGA
> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received from
> an
> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
> >>
> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
> >>
> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
> >> the next 72 hours.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >>
> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
> >> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
> >>
> >> --
> >> Karl Pauls
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
Hi John,

the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
(the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):

"A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
[hidden email]"

Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
cover for that.

Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
get this done?

regards,

Karl



On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has given
> approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache under
> ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
> outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>
> Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
> significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA associated
> with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they are
> licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license (irrespective of
> the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
> contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license until
> this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the right
> document to get signed.
>
> In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA involved
> since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be applied
> as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a loss of
> provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
> receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing repository.
>
> So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
>> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if ICLAs/SGA
>> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received from
>> an
>> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
>> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
>> >>
>> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
>> >>
>> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
>> >> the next 72 hours.
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>> >> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

John D. Ament-2
Karl,

If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@ or
legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove the
Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].

John

[1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>
> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
> [hidden email]"
>
> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
> cover for that.
>
> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
> get this done?
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has
> given
> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache under
> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
> >
> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
> associated
> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they are
> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license (irrespective
> of
> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license
> until
> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the right
> > document to get signed.
> >
> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA involved
> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
> applied
> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a loss
> of
> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing repository.
> >
> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
> >
> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
> ICLAs/SGA
> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received
> from
> >> an
> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
> >> >>
> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
> >> >>
> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
> >> >> the next 72 hours.
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Karl
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
> >> >> [1]
> >> >>
> >>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
> >> >> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Karl Pauls
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Karl Pauls
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
John,

it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?

Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!

regards,

Karl

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@ or
> legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove the
> Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
> Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
>
> John
>
> [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
>> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
>> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
>> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>>
>> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>> [hidden email]"
>>
>> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
>> cover for that.
>>
>> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
>> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
>> get this done?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Karl,
>> >
>> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has
>> given
>> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache under
>> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
>> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>> >
>> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
>> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
>> associated
>> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they are
>> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license (irrespective
>> of
>> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
>> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license
>> until
>> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the right
>> > document to get signed.
>> >
>> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA involved
>> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
>> applied
>> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a loss
>> of
>> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
>> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing repository.
>> >
>> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>> >
>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi John,
>> >>
>> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering Jessica
>> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hello,
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
>> ICLAs/SGA
>> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received
>> from
>> >> an
>> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
>> >> >
>> >> > John
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the Bundle
>> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list [2].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast within
>> >> >> the next 72 hours.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Karl
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>> >> >> [1]
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>> >> >> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

John D. Ament-2
Karl,

I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear enough
in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf

Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:

- A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
- A list of files

As well as:

- ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).

So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.

John

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> John,
>
> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
>
> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Karl,
> >
> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@
> or
> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove
> the
> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
> > Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
> >
> > John
> >
> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >>
> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
> >>
> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
> >> [hidden email]"
> >>
> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
> >> cover for that.
> >>
> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
> >> get this done?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Karl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Karl,
> >> >
> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has
> >> given
> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
> under
> >> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
> >> >
> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
> >> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
> >> associated
> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they
> are
> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
> (irrespective
> >> of
> >> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license
> >> until
> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the
> right
> >> > document to get signed.
> >> >
> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
> involved
> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
> >> applied
> >> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a
> loss
> >> of
> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
> repository.
> >> >
> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
> >> >
> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi John,
> >> >>
> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
> Jessica
> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
> >> >>
> >> >> regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Karl
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
> >> ICLAs/SGA
> >> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received
> >> from
> >> >> an
> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > John
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
> Bundle
> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list
> [2].
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
> within
> >> >> >> the next 72 hours.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> regards,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Karl
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
> >> >> >> [1]
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
> >> >> >> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Karl Pauls
> >> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [hidden email]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Karl Pauls
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Karl Pauls
> >> [hidden email]
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
John,

yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
Marz).

I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica.

Thank you for looking into this!

regards,

Karl

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear enough
> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
> included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
>
> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:
>
> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
> - A list of files
>
> As well as:
>
> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).
>
> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
>>
>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Karl,
>> >
>> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@
>> or
>> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove
>> the
>> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
>> > Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi John,
>> >>
>> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
>> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
>> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
>> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>> >>
>> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
>> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>> >> [hidden email]"
>> >>
>> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
>> >> cover for that.
>> >>
>> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
>> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
>> >> get this done?
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >>
>> >> Karl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Karl,
>> >> >
>> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has
>> >> given
>> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
>> under
>> >> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
>> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>> >> >
>> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
>> >> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
>> >> associated
>> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they
>> are
>> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
>> (irrespective
>> >> of
>> >> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
>> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license
>> >> until
>> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the
>> right
>> >> > document to get signed.
>> >> >
>> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
>> involved
>> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
>> >> applied
>> >> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a
>> loss
>> >> of
>> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
>> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
>> repository.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi John,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
>> Jessica
>> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Karl
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
>> >> ICLAs/SGA
>> >> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received
>> >> from
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > John
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
>> Bundle
>> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list
>> [2].
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
>> within
>> >> >> >> the next 72 hours.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> regards,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Karl
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>> >> >> >> [1]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>> >> >> >> [2]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Karl Pauls
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
John,

we have an ICLA for Jessica now.

However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient.
Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times over the
years and only used the project level in Schedule B.

Personally (IANAL), I think we should be good as the size of the
donation isn't that big, Intel claims the copyright and has clearly
green lighted Jessica to contribute in their name to Felix (and we
have an ICLA as well) - hence:

Are you willing to withdraw your veto based on the ICLA and the given CCLA?

Otherwise, I guess I'll go and ask legal to see if they can clear this up.

regards,

Karl


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> John,
>
> yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
> basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
> provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
> Marz).
>
> I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
> SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica.
>
> Thank you for looking into this!
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Karl,
>>
>> I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear enough
>> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
>> included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
>>
>> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:
>>
>> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
>> - A list of files
>>
>> As well as:
>>
>> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).
>>
>> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
>> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
>>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
>>>
>>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
>>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
>>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Karl,
>>> >
>>> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/ secretary@
>>> or
>>> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to remove
>>> the
>>> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE file for
>>> > Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >
>>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi John,
>>> >>
>>> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
>>> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
>>> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need the
>>> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>>> >>
>>> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
>>> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>>> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>>> >> [hidden email]"
>>> >>
>>> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
>>> >> cover for that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help me
>>> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
>>> >> get this done?
>>> >>
>>> >> regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Karl
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Karl,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity has
>>> >> given
>>> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
>>> under
>>> >> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense code
>>> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
>>> >> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
>>> >> associated
>>> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that they
>>> are
>>> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
>>> (irrespective
>>> >> of
>>> >> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of engineers
>>> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary license
>>> >> until
>>> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always the
>>> right
>>> >> > document to get signed.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
>>> involved
>>> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
>>> >> applied
>>> >> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is a
>>> loss
>>> >> of
>>> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files) we're
>>> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
>>> repository.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hi John,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>>> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>>> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
>>> Jessica
>>> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> regards,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Karl
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Hello,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
>>> >> ICLAs/SGA
>>> >> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was received
>>> >> from
>>> >> >> an
>>> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > John
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Hi,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
>>> Bundle
>>> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>>> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>>> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining list
>>> [2].
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
>>> within
>>> >> >> >> the next 72 hours.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> regards,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Karl
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>>> >> >> >> [1]
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>>> >> >> >> [2]
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> Karl Pauls
>>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> [hidden email]
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Karl Pauls
>>> >> >> [hidden email]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Karl Pauls
>>> >> [hidden email]
>>> >>
>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karl Pauls
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

John D. Ament-2
Yes, an ICLA on file should suffice.

John

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:

> John,
>
> we have an ICLA for Jessica now.
>
> However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
> required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
> the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient.
> Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times over the
> years and only used the project level in Schedule B.
>
> Personally (IANAL), I think we should be good as the size of the
> donation isn't that big, Intel claims the copyright and has clearly
> green lighted Jessica to contribute in their name to Felix (and we
> have an ICLA as well) - hence:
>
> Are you willing to withdraw your veto based on the ICLA and the given CCLA?
>
> Otherwise, I guess I'll go and ask legal to see if they can clear this up.
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > John,
> >
> > yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
> > basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
> > provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
> > Marz).
> >
> > I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
> > SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica.
> >
> > Thank you for looking into this!
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Karl,
> >>
> >> I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear
> enough
> >> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
> >> included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
> >>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
> >>
> >> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:
> >>
> >> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
> >> - A list of files
> >>
> >> As well as:
> >>
> >> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).
> >>
> >> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
> >> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John,
> >>>
> >>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
> >>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
> >>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
> >>>
> >>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
> >>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
> >>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> Karl
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Karl,
> >>> >
> >>> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/
> secretary@
> >>> or
> >>> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to
> remove
> >>> the
> >>> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE
> file for
> >>> > Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
> >>> >
> >>> > John
> >>> >
> >>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi John,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
> >>> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
> >>> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need
> the
> >>> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
> >>> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
> >>> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
> >>> >> [hidden email]"
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
> >>> >> cover for that.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help
> me
> >>> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
> >>> >> get this done?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> regards,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Karl
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Karl,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity
> has
> >>> >> given
> >>> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
> >>> under
> >>> >> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense
> code
> >>> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
> >>> >> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
> >>> >> associated
> >>> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that
> they
> >>> are
> >>> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
> >>> (irrespective
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of
> engineers
> >>> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary
> license
> >>> >> until
> >>> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always
> the
> >>> right
> >>> >> > document to get signed.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
> >>> involved
> >>> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
> >>> >> applied
> >>> >> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is
> a
> >>> loss
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files)
> we're
> >>> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
> >>> repository.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> Hi John,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
> >>> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
> >>> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
> >>> Jessica
> >>> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> regards,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Karl
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
> >>> [hidden email]>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > Hello,
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
> >>> >> ICLAs/SGA
> >>> >> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was
> received
> >>> >> from
> >>> >> >> an
> >>> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > John
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >> Hi,
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
> >>> Bundle
> >>> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
> >>> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
> >>> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining
> list
> >>> [2].
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
> >>> within
> >>> >> >> >> the next 72 hours.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> regards,
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> Karl
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
> >>> >> >> >> [1]
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
> >>> >> >> >> [2]
> >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> >> Karl Pauls
> >>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [hidden email]
> >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> --
> >>> >> >> Karl Pauls
> >>> >> >> [hidden email]
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [hidden email]
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Karl Pauls
> >>> >> [hidden email]
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Karl Pauls
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karl Pauls
> > [hidden email]
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Karl Pauls
Great!

I think we can just resume this vote. I updated the ip-clearance form
and will wait another 72 hours.

If no -1 is cast within the next 72 hours I will wrap it up and we
will accept the contribution into Felix.

regards,

Karl

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:50 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, an ICLA on file should suffice.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> we have an ICLA for Jessica now.
>>
>> However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
>> required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
>> the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient.
>> Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times over the
>> years and only used the project level in Schedule B.
>>
>> Personally (IANAL), I think we should be good as the size of the
>> donation isn't that big, Intel claims the copyright and has clearly
>> green lighted Jessica to contribute in their name to Felix (and we
>> have an ICLA as well) - hence:
>>
>> Are you willing to withdraw your veto based on the ICLA and the given CCLA?
>>
>> Otherwise, I guess I'll go and ask legal to see if they can clear this up.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > John,
>> >
>> > yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
>> > basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
>> > provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
>> > Marz).
>> >
>> > I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
>> > SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica.
>> >
>> > Thank you for looking into this!
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Karl
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Karl,
>> >>
>> >> I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear
>> enough
>> >> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
>> >> included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
>> >>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:
>> >>
>> >> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
>> >> - A list of files
>> >>
>> >> As well as:
>> >>
>> >> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).
>> >>
>> >> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
>> >> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> John,
>> >>>
>> >>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
>> >>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>> >>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
>> >>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
>> >>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Karl
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > Karl,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/
>> secretary@
>> >>> or
>> >>> > legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to
>> remove
>> >>> the
>> >>> > Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE
>> file for
>> >>> > Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
>> >>> >
>> >>> > John
>> >>> >
>> >>> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Hi John,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
>> >>> >> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
>> >>> >> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need
>> the
>> >>> >> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
>> >>> >> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>> >>> >> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>> >>> >> [hidden email]"
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
>> >>> >> cover for that.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help
>> me
>> >>> >> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
>> >>> >> get this done?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> regards,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Karl
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > Karl,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity
>> has
>> >>> >> given
>> >>> >> > approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
>> >>> under
>> >>> >> > ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense
>> code
>> >>> >> > outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
>> >>> >> > significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
>> >>> >> associated
>> >>> >> > with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that
>> they
>> >>> are
>> >>> >> > licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
>> >>> (irrespective
>> >>> >> of
>> >>> >> > the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of
>> engineers
>> >>> >> > contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary
>> license
>> >>> >> until
>> >>> >> > this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always
>> the
>> >>> right
>> >>> >> > document to get signed.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
>> >>> involved
>> >>> >> > since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
>> >>> >> applied
>> >>> >> > as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is
>> a
>> >>> loss
>> >>> >> of
>> >>> >> > provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files)
>> we're
>> >>> >> > receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
>> >>> repository.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >> Hi John,
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>> >>> >> >> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>> >>> >> >> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
>> >>> Jessica
>> >>> >> >> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> regards,
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> Karl
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
>> >>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> > Hello,
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
>> >>> >> ICLAs/SGA
>> >>> >> >> > were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was
>> received
>> >>> >> from
>> >>> >> >> an
>> >>> >> >> > individual, which doesn't sound right.
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > John
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >> Hi,
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
>> >>> Bundle
>> >>> >> >> >> Archive File Installer Extension.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>> >>> >> >> >> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>> >>> >> >> >> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining
>> list
>> >>> [2].
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
>> >>> within
>> >>> >> >> >> the next 72 hours.
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> regards,
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> Karl
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>> >>> >> >> >> [1]
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>> >>> >> >> >> [2]
>> >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >> >> Karl Pauls
>> >>> >> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> --
>> >>> >> >> Karl Pauls
>> >>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> --
>> >>> >> Karl Pauls
>> >>> >> [hidden email]
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Karl Pauls
>> >>> [hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karl Pauls
>> > [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>



--
Karl Pauls
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Craig Russell-3
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the satisfaction of the contributor. We don't try to second-guess the intent of the grantor. We assume that their own counsel have reviewed the grant.

Some licensors are very specific about their contributions, listing urls and timestamps; or specific file names. Others are less precise, simply naming the package that they are licensing to us.

If the grant is general, this indicates that the licensor is granting pretty much everything associated with the project. In most cases, this is what is intended when "moving a project" to Apache.

If the grant is specific, this indicates that the licensor is choosing not to grant everything, but only those parts explicitly named. In this case, the receiving project needs to be more diligent about only taking those pieces that are named in the grant.

Craig

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 3:50 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, an ICLA on file should suffice.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:07 PM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> we have an ICLA for Jessica now.
>>
>> However, Intel is maintaining the position that it shouldn't be
>> required to identify the software granted in detail but rather stating
>> the top-level project it is granted to should be sufficient.
>> Furthermore, they argue that they have done that many times over the
>> years and only used the project level in Schedule B.
>>
>> Personally (IANAL), I think we should be good as the size of the
>> donation isn't that big, Intel claims the copyright and has clearly
>> green lighted Jessica to contribute in their name to Felix (and we
>> have an ICLA as well) - hence:
>>
>> Are you willing to withdraw your veto based on the ICLA and the given CCLA?
>>
>> Otherwise, I guess I'll go and ask legal to see if they can clear this up.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> John,
>>>
>>> yeah, I see that the schedule B is somewhat lacking. Oh well, ok, so
>>> basically we are fine with a CCLA but in this case we don't think the
>>> provided one is explicit enough (plus we want an ICLA for Jessica
>>> Marz).
>>>
>>> I'll let them know and get back to this thread when there is either an
>>> SGA or a new CCLA with the zip name and hash + ICLA for Jessica.
>>>
>>> Thank you for looking into this!
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Karl,
>>>>
>>>> I just read the CCLA that was filed.  I do not believe it is clear
>> enough
>>>> in the schedule B that it contains to conclude what is meant to be
>>>> included.  Since you're a chair, you should have access to it at
>>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/documents/cclas/intel-corporation-felix.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Typically, to use a schedule B (as you're noting) I would expect:
>>>>
>>>> - A zip/tar archive with checksum & md5 listed OR
>>>> - A list of files
>>>>
>>>> As well as:
>>>>
>>>> - ICLA(s) on file for the individual(s).
>>>>
>>>> So you could also do another CCLA but listing out one of those two items
>>>> above, as well as request an ICLA from Jessica Marz.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 7:08 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> it might typically be an SGA but it does say: "This grant can either
>>>>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>>>>> Grant Agreement". Should we change that wording then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, I will follow-up with Intel via Jessica and let them know
>>>>> that the provided Corporate CLA isn't sufficient and see if they can
>>>>> provide a Software Grant Agreement instead. Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the code is already Apache licensed, then I would check w/
>> secretary@
>>>>> or
>>>>>> legal-discuss@ to confirm what documents need to be in place to
>> remove
>>>>> the
>>>>>> Intel copyright claim (typically those would go in to the NOTICE
>> file for
>>>>>> Apache Felix going forward).  This is typically done as an SGA [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:57 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the code has been available as AL with the Intel copyright already
>>>>>>> (the license headers in the files are unchanged). It is mainly an
>>>>>>> attempt to get it contributed to Apache Felix. I told them we need
>> the
>>>>>>> following (from the incubator ip-clearance form):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "A software grant must be provided to the ASF. This grant can either
>>>>>>> be done by the ASF Corporate CLA (via Schedule B) or the Software
>>>>>>> Grant Agreement. The completed and signed grant must be emailed to
>>>>>>> [hidden email]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consequently, they send (the received) CCLA which was supposed to
>>>>>>> cover for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies if I misunderstood the requirement. Could you please help
>> me
>>>>>>> out here and list what exactly we need from Intel and/or Jessica to
>>>>>>> get this done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM, John D. Ament <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Karl,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CCLA [1] is just a document indicating that the corporate entity
>> has
>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>> approval for individuals associated to it to contribute to Apache
>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> ICLAs.  It really doesn't provide any legal bearing to relicense
>> code
>>>>>>>> outside of an ICLA/SGA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usually when projects come to us with an IP clearance, its for a
>>>>>>>> significant amount of code.  In those scenarios, there's an SGA
>>>>>>> associated
>>>>>>>> with the contribution (from a corporate entity) indicating that
>> they
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> licensing the ASF to use the code under the Apache license
>>>>> (irrespective
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the original license).  I'm assuming that at Intel some # of
>> engineers
>>>>>>>> contributed to this code, and that it was under a proprietary
>> license
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>> this JIRA ticket was filed.  In that case, SGA is almost always
>> the
>>>>> right
>>>>>>>> document to get signed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the situations where we see ICLAs, there isn't usually a SGA
>>>>> involved
>>>>>>>> since its covered under an ICLA for that committer and needs to be
>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>> as a patch/pull request.  The other clear thing this indicates is
>> a
>>>>> loss
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> provenance, since (I haven't looked at all of the source files)
>> we're
>>>>>>>> receiving a flat dump of code to be brought into an existing
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, unfortunately, until that's resolved I'm -1 to accepting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 5:03 AM Karl Pauls <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as far as I understand the situation, the contribution has been
>>>>>>>>> submitted by Jessica Marz on behalf of Intel. The copyright is
>>>>>>>>> entirely Intel and the CCLA received is _from_ Intel, covering
>>>>> Jessica
>>>>>>>>> Marz and the contribution. Does that help?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:54 AM, John D. Ament <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can you please clarify whether only a CCLA was received, or if
>>>>>>> ICLAs/SGA
>>>>>>>>>> were received as well?  The document indicates a CCLA was
>> received
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> individual, which doesn't sound right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:32 AM Karl Pauls <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the Apache Felix project has received the contribution of the
>>>>> Bundle
>>>>>>>>>>> Archive File Installer Extension.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - The code is attached to FELIX-5732 [0].
>>>>>>>>>>> - The IP Clearance form has been committed [1].
>>>>>>>>>>> - The acceptance vote has passed on the dev@felix malining
>> list
>>>>> [2].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The clearance passes by lazy consensus if no -1 votes are cast
>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>> the next 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-5732
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/felix-bar-file-install-extension.html
>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@.../msg44409.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Karl Pauls
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Karl Pauls
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Karl Pauls
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karl Pauls
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karl Pauls
>>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karl Pauls
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
[hidden email] http://db.apache.org/jdo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi Craig,

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Craig Russell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy
> is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the
> satisfaction of the contributor....

So IIUC this means you agree with the way this has been handled?

I'm asking just to make sure the archives of this thread provide a
very clear answer,
in case we have similar situations in the future.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Craig Russell-3
Hi Bertrand,

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:20 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Craig Russell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I apologize for coming late to this discussion, but longstanding policy
>> is to accept either SGA or CCLA that identifies the contribution to the
>> satisfaction of the contributor....
>
> So IIUC this means you agree with the way this has been handled?

I agree with accepting Intel's CCLA/grant for "Felix" and proceeding with IP Clearance.

I agree with the conclusion that Intel's explicit grant for "Felix" as identified on Schedule B of the CCLA provides sufficient coverage for us to remove Intel's copyright statements on the code donated to Felix.
>
> I'm asking just to make sure the archives of this thread provide a
> very clear answer,
> in case we have similar situations in the future.

I hope that this thread will inform future situations where a CCLA/SGA is descriptive but not extremely detailed.

Craig

>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
[hidden email] http://db.apache.org/jdo


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Felix Bundle Archive File Installer Extension

Bertrand Delacretaz
Hi Craig,

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Craig Russell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...I hope that this thread will inform future situations where a CCLA/SGA
> is descriptive but not extremely detailed....

Thank you for your clarifications, they help make this archived thread
more useful.

-Bertrand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]