oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects]
Date Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:00:36 GMT
Salut a tout le monde,

didn't we accept external contributions to that part, once Leelo
codebase was accepted?
IIRC issues were filled and patches applied on oauth2, please correct
me if I am wrong!

As a side note: Leelo's guys submitted Leelo after submitting a
SoftwareGrant, so please explain me why we should risk to lost the
oauth2 contribution because I feel lost :(

NCU guys: any progress on your side to understand the legal issue?

TIA all, have a nice day,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/



On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Tommaso Teofili
<tommaso.teofili@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Il giorno 12/mar/2012, alle ore 18.40, Antonio Sanso ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Raymond
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Antonio.
>>>
>>> Thank you for driving the efforts.
>>>
>>> Can we run a quick scan of the code base to understand which part of the source
was from Univ. of Newcastle?
>>
>>
>> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence University of Newcastle.
>> Please correct me if I  am wrong.
>
> yes, that's correct.
> Tommaso
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antonio
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Raymond
>>>
>>> On Mar 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi *,
>>>>
>>>> as you probably know at this stage seems that we are kind of stuck due this
IP clearance issue.
>>>> My understanding is also that people might be "afraid" on committing code
to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribution might be "lost"
due IP issues (question: how much "real" is this risk??).
>>>> Taking the risk to be a bit harsh here I'd have the following proposal in
order to move forward (please do contradict me if you do not agree or have any other proposal):
>>>>
>>>> - I'd focus contribution on brand new area/modules avoiding IP related issue.
>>>>
>>>> IANAL and I could be totally wrong here so I'll try to articulate my proposal
with an example.
>>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll create
a new module e.g.  oauth2-resourceserver.mac that leverages other module oauth2-resourceserver,
oauth2-common we should be "safe".
>>>> Namely if one day we NEED to rewrite oauth2-common from scratch (again this
is just hypothetical) we can keep oauth2-resourceserver.mac  .
>>>>
>>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have been
taught to "hope for the best and plan for the worst"
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Antonio
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBER-41
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Antonio Sanso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi *,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Pid * wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31 Jan 2012, at 10:15, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to
do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative?  I am wincing as I say
it,
>>>>>> but if we can't make progress on the legal issue then we'll have
to
>>>>>> take some drastic action.
>>>>>
>>>>> not to be too pessimistic, but given the current status quo I am starting
to reconsider what Pid has said.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT? Should we start to think about a fallback plan ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tommaso
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/1/31 Antonio Sanso <asanso@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Amber
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the
last report?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's the status with the mentioned "copyright signoff
from
>>>>>>>>> University of Newcastle"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is there anyone that would be able to give an answer to Jukka
(mail sent
>>>>>>>> to general@)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Antonio
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message