[ng-dhtml] Fwd: contributing the OpenRecord IP to the Dojo Foundation

David Schontzler schontz at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 23:28:38 CDT 2005


So Martin basically said what I tried to say (and then some) and I
concur, especially since he has more experience on this topic than me
(like I have any).

On 10/5/05, Martin Cooper <martinc at apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Alex Russell wrote:
>
> > The OpenRecord project would like to develop under the auspices of the
> > Dojo Foundation, and seem willing to abide by our guidelines regarding
> > code ownership and the like.
> >
> > Should we take them on? Yea or nay?
>
> A few questions come to mind that might be worth some thought up front:
>
> 1) If I'm not mistaken (and if I am, it's Google's fault ;), OpenRecord is
> primarily an app rather than a toolkit. Certainly there may be some pieces
> that would migrate to the Dojo toolkit. However, it's still a fairly
> fundamental change to the foundation to move from a singular focus on a
> toolkit to including applications built on that toolkit. You need to be
> sure that's a path you want to go down.
>
> 2) If the foundation is open to applications built on the Dojo toolkit in
> addition to the toolkit itself, what criteria are you going to use to
> determine whether or not to accept or reject J Random App? I'm assuming
> you wouldn't accept _every_ request to donate code. ;-)
>
> 3) How will you determine provenance of a donated body of code? This isn't
> usually an issue with patches or other small contributions, but with a
> large chunk of code, you need to know up front how you want to deal with
> that. (The ASF has a formal Software Grant to help with this, although
> that doesn't solve the entire problem either.)
>
> 4) It seems that the OpenRecord folks want to dual-license their code,
> rather than switch the license to the AFL. What criteria will you use to
> determine which licenses are acceptable to the Dojo Foundation, which
> licenses you will accept dual license with, and which licenses you will
> reject?
>
> The above might seem like nit-picking to some, but they are all very real
> issues that have come up at the ASF, and each one has generated heated
> discussion, at the very least. So I'd strongly recommend that you discuss
> at least some of this before making any decisions.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> > Regards
> >
> > ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> >
> > Subject: contributing the OpenRecord IP to the Dojo Foundation
> > Date: Wednesday 05 October 2005 2:07 pm
> > From: "Brian Douglas Skinner" <brian.skinner at gumption.org>
> > To: alex at dojotoolkit.org
> > Cc: "'Chih-Chao Lam'" <chao at cs.stanford.edu>, "'Mignon Belongie'"
> > <Mignon_Belongie at yahoo.com>, "'Jeffrey Harris'" <jeffrey at ic.org>,
> > "'Marty Betz'" <martybetz at gmail.com>, "'Katie Capps Parlante'"
> > <capps at cs.stanford.edu>
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Thanks again for sitting down with me and Mignon at SuperHappyDevHouse
> > and talking through all my questions.  In the past couple weeks we've
> > converted all of the OpenRecord code to use the Dojo package system,
> > and it's all working splendidly now!  We're now gradually phasing out
> > our own homegrown JavaScript utility functions and porting our code
> > over to the corresponding Dojo utilities: event registration, file IO,
> > language extensions, etc.
> >
> > Once the OpenRecord code is fully ported over to the Dojo
> > infrastructure, there are some OpenRecord generic utility classes that
> > you might want to consider as candidates for inclusion in the Dojo
> > toolkit.  For example, we've got a simple general-purpose CSV parser,
> > some classes for generating UUIDs and introspecting on UUIDs, and some
> > simple functions for assertions and parameter type-checking.
> >
> > I'm writing now to follow up with you about the idea of all the
> > OpenRecord contributors signing the Dojo Contributor License
> > Agreement, and having all the OpenRecord intellectual property be
> > contributed to the Dojo Foundation. I've been corresponding with Ted
> > Leung about the idea of nursing the OpenRecord project through the
> > Apache Incubator to become an Apache project, but I think it makes
> > more sense for the OpenRecord IP to live under the Dojo umbrella.  For
> > one thing, I think there may be more of a natural fit between Dojo and
> > OpenRecord, given that OpenRecord is building on top Dojo, and both
> > projects are AJAX/JavaScript projects, and most of our contributors
> > are geographically nearby.
> >
> > If I understood correctly, I think you said you'd be happy for us to
> > contribute all the OpenRecord IP to the Dojo Foundation, but that you
> > also needed to check with Dylan and the other Dojo folks.  Feel free
> > to forward this mail to people at Dojo.  After that, what are the next
> > steps?
> >
> > Licenses:
> >  We can get signed Dojo Contributor License Agreements from the past
> > and present OpenRecord contributors, as well as new people who want to
> > start contributing.  Is it okay to just point people to the CLA on the
> > Dojo site, and have them print it and sign it and mail it to the Santa
> > Monica address for the Dojo Foundation?
> > (http://dojotoolkit.org/icla.txt)
> >
> > Subversion:
> >  Right now we've got all the OpenRecord code in a Subversion
> > repository hosted by BerliOS in Germany.  We can happily keep hosting
> > from there, or we could move the code to a Dojo server, if you're set
> > up for that.  I'm guessing it'd be more convenient for you to have us
> > continue hosting from BerliOS, but I wanted to check.  If we do keep
> > hosting from BerliOS, we will make it clear to OpenRecord contributors
> > that all submissions to the OpenRecord BerliOS repository are
> > submissions to the Dojo Foundation, under the terms of the Dojo CLA.
> > Likewise for mailing list contributions.
> >
> > Boilerplate:
> >  Right now all the OpenRecord files have a little bit of legal
> > boilerplate at the top of each file.  The boilerplate says, "Written
> > in 2005 by xxx. Copyright rights relinquished under the Creative
> > Commons Public Domain Dedication ...", plus it has some liability
> > disclaimers.  Here's an example with the full text:
> >
> > <http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/*checkout*/openrecord/trunk/source/view/
> > Multi EntriesView.js?rev=341&content-type=text%2Fplain>
> >
> >  In the .zip file download of Dojo 0.1, all the files have some
> > boilerplate that says, "Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Dojo Foundation,
> > Licensed under the Academic Free License version 2.1 or above."
> >
> >  I'd love to dual-license the OpenRecord code, so that it's available
> > under the Academic Free License that Dojo is using, as well as the
> > Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication that we've been using.  Is
> > it okay with you if we do that?  Do you care what boilerplate we use?
> > Maybe something like this: "Copyright (c) 2005 The Dojo Foundation and
> > contributing authors. Licensed under the Academic Free License version
> > 2.1 or above. Copyright rights relinquished under the Creative Commons
> > Public Domain Dedication."
> >
> > Thanks again for taking the time to work with us!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  Brian Skinner
> >  brian.skinner at gumption.org
> >  415-661-7906
> >  http://openrecord.org
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > Alex Russell
> > alex at dojotoolkit.org BE03 E88D EABB 2116 CC49 8259 CF78 E242 59C3 9723
> > alex at netWindows.org  F687 1964 1EF6 453E 9BD0 5148 A15D 1D43 AB92 9A46
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NG-DHTML mailing list
> > NG-DHTML at netwindows.org
> > http://netwindows.org/mailman/listinfo/ng-dhtml_netwindows.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NG-DHTML mailing list
> NG-DHTML at netwindows.org
> http://netwindows.org/mailman/listinfo/ng-dhtml_netwindows.org
>



More information about the NG-DHTML mailing list