From amber-dev-return-819-apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Mar 13 10:01:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7FC49976B for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:01:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71831 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2012 10:01:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 71791 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2012 10:01:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 71779 invoked by uid 99); 13 Mar 2012 10:01:01 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:01:01 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=FRT_ADOBE2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.47] (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:00:56 +0000 Received: by yhjj56 with SMTP id j56so324983yhj.6 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=co4UIMr+Z+u5a7DgGVBKW/AiyoaW8u3rlYgCJbDC0ZA=; b=N7sXZb2QLJZ3J6scWWSHGNuCz4wCeL7RCk1y+gfxaIR7fDJwEVltxp+udU3hswln1x eYQ0uN2rbolUM+gFBDy+5alSGDUg9kouLIrdn3MrLZu0IvAGTyPNwFIlGnrMzvYKbMsH LvPfiv0V8MMvV88N50g6gdhbWudoL3OIYGqu2QYoXFHNmyJuwa0UI7SrRrDS9AD/gEgm 2MbbJJF/P/324DS13LAxd9HaLwijxIkp9WinqkRhGVaMEk/FJFQudwtcc2SpuNIwoFEt IiBWbgsf+Yi70qydIa3M8Cpdz8E3UVRAMSKc5vM3FS/RytTN3q6PvivlR36L/LUsP4hr pNFQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.1.9 with SMTP id 9mr11773032qad.30.1331632836057; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.195.73 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 03:00:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <80984EE6-0B71-4F94-815A-83677FA7D458@adobe.com> <-2081503742751255287@unknownmsgid> <2DFD6EE6-805F-4F13-AA79-15642B61DF20@adobe.com> <8C83BEB0-244B-445E-89CA-A5EBCDD9E7D2@adobe.com> <12E570C3-C678-4CE0-B613-771D62BE81FE@adobe.com> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:00:36 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YTpmUBvB4oPpKI8S3IWJ8d04aPM Message-ID: Subject: Re: Moving forward (proposal) [was: Questions for projects] From: Simone Tripodi To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 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 th= e source was from Univ. of Newcastle? >> >> >> I think everything under trunk/oauth-2.0 comes from Leeloo hence Univers= ity of Newcastle. >> Please correct me if I =C2=A0am 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 c= ode to the current trunk/oauth-2.0 since there is a risk that the contribut= ion 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 h= ave 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 p= roposal with an example. >>>> AMBER-41 [0] is a brand new topic not implemented in Amber. If I'll cr= eate a new module e.g. =C2=A0oauth2-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 =C2=A0. >>>> >>>> WDYT? Apologies again if this sounds kind of pessimistic but I have be= en 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 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not me unfortunately, I hope Lukasz or Maciej could be able to do t= hat. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we start considering an alternative? =C2=A0I 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 star= ting 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:32 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amber >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any progress on the graduation issues mentioned in the last repor= t? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 (mai= l sent >>>>>>>> to general@)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Antonio >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >