| Re: Hudson Proposal posted [message #674725 is a reply to message #674659] |
Sat, 28 May 2011 04:26   |
 Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
Messages: 8
Registered: May 2011 |
Junior Member |
|
|
>> Does Jenkins have an IP due diligence process?
From context I assume you mean the original governance that was being used when Hudson was a project under Sun's leadership. Since I was the engineering manager for that project, I feel I should answer.
The old governance varied between core and the plugins. The core was handled roughly like all the other Sun-sponsored projects, the plugins were handled with more lenience, as each was, essentially, its own mini-project, although they all shared the same code repository at java.net (this was pre-GitHub/Git). The core governance required contributors, or if they were employees, an authorized representative from their company, to sign the SCA. Contributions were supervised by the project lead, Kohsuke, appointed by Sun. The main difference with how projects like GlassFish were managed is that Hudson was much more liberal granting committer rights.
Signatories for the CA were recorded in a central location available to the public [1] so everybody could check the status (note that Sun employees were not listed there because their IP was covered by the employee contract).
In July 2010 (after Oracle's acquisition of Hudson, when I was no longer responsible for the project), Tyler started a thread [2] asking about the future of the project. In that thread the topic of restarting recording CAs came back and I did a pass [3] to clean up the records since I was familiar with the process.
As Sacha mentions earlier in this thread, IP governance manages risk and balances that against the adoption and commercial goals for the project. I think the governance was a reasonable compromise for Hudson.
[1] sca.java.net/CA_signatories.htm.
[2] markmail.org/thread/bambglr2nwav3tb6
[3] markmail.org/thread/cahozwxnuwsxurog
PS. My last contribution was somehow posted multiple times; I'll cross fingers that the same won't happen now.
[Updated on: Sat, 28 May 2011 13:18] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: (MIT license and EPL) Re: Hudson Proposal posted [message #675779 is a reply to message #675623] |
Wed, 01 June 2011 13:14 |
Ed Merks
Messages: 33136
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Eduardo,
Just glancing at Wikipedia, there really are many variations on these
things, with MIT being a variation of BSD. In all cases the original
license must be respected. I'm quite sure (though I'm not a lawyer)
that there's nothing in MIT or BSD that's incompatible with Eclipse;
those licenses are extremely permissive and do allow relicensing. Your
question about combining them in a repo is a bit vague. There are
projects at Eclipse that are dual licensed (with a BSD-variant), but
such projects do require board approval.
Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:
> Hi Wayne.
>
> I think it would be useful to the larger OSS community if Eclipse
> explained how the MIT and the EPL licenses interact, in a way similar
> to how you explained GPL and EPL in your FAQ [1]. There is very
> little hard data on the "calculus of Licenses", and this could be a
> useful contribution from the foundation.
>
> In particular:
> * Can MIT and EPL be combined in the same repository?
> * Can code licensed under MIT be relicensed under EPL?
>
> Those two are in my list of "Things I learned from the Hudson/Jenkins
> experience", except that I don't *really* know if I learned, or just
> *think* I learned them.
>
> Thanks,
> - eduard/o
>
> [1]www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#GPLCOMPATIBLE
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: (MIT license and EPL) Re: Hudson Proposal posted [message #676881 is a reply to message #675800] |
Mon, 06 June 2011 19:14 |
|
Am 01.06.2011 16:48, schrieb Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart:
> But, if MIT-licensed code can be relicensed to EPL by anybody, then that is not a legal issue.
I'm not a lawyer, though! But I had a similar case with ASL code in one
of my projects. It doesn't need to be re-licensed. Here is what we do at
Eclipse.
The MIT header stays in that file and the file can be committed to
Eclipse SCM (once approved by the legal team). Additional information is
placed in an about.html file together with accompanying resources in an
about folder. If you modify/extend the code, your contributions can be
licensed under EPL. In such a case the file has both headers. The
majority of the file content decides which header comes first.
-Gunnar
--
Gunnar Wagenknecht
gunnar@wagenknecht.org
http://wagenknecht.org/
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02150 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
