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

Martin Cooper martinc at apache.org
Wed Oct 5 23:36:40 CDT 2005


I know it's cheesy to reply to my own message, but I forgot to mention 
that the ASF set up the Incubator, mentioned by Brian, specifically to 
deal with some of these issues, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a 
look at what the Incubator folks have done.

--
Martin Cooper


On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Martin Cooper 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