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

Alex Russell alex at dojotoolkit.org
Wed Oct 12 14:41:14 CDT 2005


Ok, we didn't get any continuing discussion on this.

It sounds like, at the very least, we need to:

1.) decide if we should vote on this or some other way to accept them to 
the project.
2.) agree that the outlined (minimal) process for accepting 
contributions is acceptable. If not, decide on a new one.
3.) come up with a document that outlines Foundation licensing goals

Does that sound right?

Regards

On Thursday 06 October 2005 9:05 am, Alex Russell wrote:
> Good questions.
>
> On Wednesday 05 October 2005 9:25 pm, 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.
>
> I'm not sure that this is something to be terribly concerned about.
> They have an independent set of developers working on their project,
> and given that this is open source, people spend their time where
> there is interest. The Foundation is something of a paper tiger
> anyway, so it's not like they'd be drawing away financial resources.
> We're also not discussing release coordination or anything else that
> would detract from the current developer's focus on the toolkit.
> Additionally, someone suggested that we get a sample app, and this
> might serve as such.
>
> > 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. ;-)
>
> This seems much harder to answer and I don't know that I have a good
> one. OpenRecord is, today, a giant ball of JavaScript, which makes it
> something of a cultural fit, but there is lots of bad JS out there,
> and to date we've only accepted what I think are high-quality code
> bases to work from.
>
> Those suggest some directions to answer the question, but I'm not
> sure if I even like where they point. Perhaps we can just leave it to
> a vote?
>
> > 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.)
>
> Right now the proceedure being discussed looks like:
> 	* they will gather CLA's from all of their known contributors
> 	* should that not be possible, we step back and re-examine
> 	* assuming it's possible, they submit them to us
> 	* we go get beer
>
> We can (and, perhaps, should) ask for a copy of their SVN repo and
> see how far back it goes. I'm not keen to spend a lot of time patting
> them down, esp given the relative (small) risks.
>
> > 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?
>
> Unknown. I expected this to be the most contentious point.
>
> I made it clear to the OpenRecord folks that we wouldn't even begin
> discussing this process until they accepted that we'd license their
> code under the AFL. The CC Public Domain "license" is a potentially
> problematic choice of alternate terms, but I'm not sure by how much.
>
> If case law decides that you *can* assign something to the public
> domain (which is very unclear today), then we may loose the power to
> license their code under the AFL. OTOH, if it's possible to dedicate
> something to the public domain, that satisfies what I consider to be
> the project's licensing goals.
>
> We picked the AFL to drive adoption without worry as to ownership
> based on the understanding that we can't put things in the public
> domain, but if that option is available, I think we would have chosen
> that instead. It seems that of all the potential alternate licensing
> terms, they've picked the one that most matches our goals.
>
> I'm not sure that suggests an answer other than that the Foundation
> should clarify the goals of its licensing and say "yay" or "nay" on a
> case-by-case basis until we have need of a more formal process.
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks for helping us watch our back.
>
> Regards

-- 
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



More information about the NG-DHTML mailing list