Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

R. Tyler Croy

Some of you may know me, for those that don't, I'm not a contributor to core,
nor a plugin developer. I run @hudsonci on twitter, and the Hudson blog on
www.hudson-labs.org. That said, take the following opinions with a grain of
salt knowing that my contributions are non-Java-based :).


I find myself stressed over the current lack of clear
direction/roadmap/governance for the Hudson project. "In the beginning" there
was Kohsuke, the benevolent dictator for life, being paid by Sun to work on
"stuff". Times were good, Kohsuke spent large amounts of time
fostering one of the powerhouse projects in the Java tools community.

At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required to
sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun relicense/etc the
code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.

Regardless, lots of people were hacking on Hudson, times were good.


Fast forward to today:

 * Oracle owns the "god mode" for the Hudson core, and has made no obvious
   moves to contribute or engage with the Hudson community (as far as I can
   tell)
 * Kohsuke has started InfraDNA[1] deemed "The Hudson Company" which today
   announced a "Certified HudsonCI" package. It's too early to tell what ICHCI
   actually is (a fork of mainline Hudson vs. some other contraption with a
   juicy Hudson center)
 * The Hudson project has an increasingly active plugin ecosystem (~300 plugins) [2]
 * Large portions of critical Hudson infrastructure owned and operated by Oracle (pretty
   much everything under hudson-ci.org)


I have had a more difficult time on the advocacy front with Hudson because I
honestly don't know:

 * Where Hudson is going
 * Who is driving


While I am certain that Kohsuke's contributions to Hudson are going
to persist, it's unclear to me for how long, and whether that is wholly
dependent on InfraDNA's success and whether it his contributions to Hudson
(versus ICHCI) will only occur when it is mutually beneficial for InfraDNA.


The ambiguous relationship between the Hudson project and Oracle continues to
seemingly be unaddressed. If Oracle has any intentions with their involvement
with Hudson, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later as the current
situation is riddled with question marks. What do our former SCAs mean in terms
of current involvement? Does Oracle continue to have indefinite ownership of
code contributed to -core? Who actually owns "Hudson"? Who owns the source code?
Who is able to change the license for core? I need an adult!


Some of these topics have been discussed between Kohsuke, Alan, Andrew and I,
which I think was incorrect. I feel it's disrespectful to have held so many
private discussions about these topics without looping in the greater developer
community, without which it is doubtful Hudson would be where it is today. For
that I sincereley apologize.


I do hope we can resolve some of these questions, or at least start some
discussion around it. I do not like the feelings of frustration I've held that
have detracted from my advocacy work. Hudson's been good to me, I'd like to
continue to be good to it.



Ho hum; I hope my super-long email was, at the very least, easy to read. :)


Cheers,
-R. Tyler Ballance
--------------------------------------
  GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero
--------------------------------------


[1] http://InfraDNA.com
[2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Plugins



attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

stephenconnolly


On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]> wrote:

Some of you may know me, for those that don't, I'm not a contributor to core,
nor a plugin developer. I run @hudsonci on twitter, and the Hudson blog on
www.hudson-labs.org. That said, take the following opinions with a grain of
salt knowing that my contributions are non-Java-based :).


I find myself stressed over the current lack of clear
direction/roadmap/governance for the Hudson project. "In the beginning" there
was Kohsuke, the benevolent dictator for life, being paid by Sun to work on
"stuff". Times were good, Kohsuke spent large amounts of time
fostering one of the powerhouse projects in the Java tools community.

At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required to
sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun relicense/etc the
code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.


You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.

IANAL, but

1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net project while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle. 

2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
 
Regardless, lots of people were hacking on Hudson, times were good.


Fast forward to today:

 * Oracle owns the "god mode" for the Hudson core, and has made no obvious
  moves to contribute or engage with the Hudson community (as far as I can
  tell)

IANAL but if we move hosting to somewhere else (i.e. we make a derivative work) then the "god mode" is effectively dead, especially as we make significant advances on the project... because the java.net version will then become out of date.
 
 * Kohsuke has started InfraDNA[1] deemed "The Hudson Company" which today
  announced a "Certified HudsonCI" package. It's too early to tell what ICHCI
  actually is (a fork of mainline Hudson vs. some other contraption with a
  juicy Hudson center)

When I met up with Kohsuke in June, we discussed briefly what his plans were for InfraDNA.  As I see it, ICHCI is a stabilised version of hudson with tested plugins well integrated and shipping by default.  Mix in some commercial license plugins that provide functionality not currently available (or not currently as well implemented) in free plugins, and you have something that corporations would hopefully be interested in.

The real question is how much longer will Kohsuke remain an active committer to core?

To differentiate the InfraDNA offer, you need to add value that is not available for free... if InfraDNA maintains a private fork of Core with some commercially licensed code then the ICHCI offer could provide commercial value... but the downside of such a fork is that the free plugins might not work... so you'd actually be stabbing yourself in the foot (as one of the key value adds for Hudson is the plugin community.... ok so some plugins could really do from propper testing, but if I really need that feature from plugin XYZ, I can do the testing myself)

So as I see it, if I were Kohsuke, I'd stay an active committer to core (it also allows you to say you are best placed to support Hudson) and I'd develop all new features as plugins, making the kick-ass ones commercially licensed.

So far, to me, that's what it looks like he's doing.
 
 * The Hudson project has an increasingly active plugin ecosystem (~300 plugins) [2]
 * Large portions of critical Hudson infrastructure owned and operated by Oracle (pretty
  much everything under hudson-ci.org)

We need to move everything off of Oracle owned kit, again IANAL but I see it as part of the requirements for neutralizing the SCA.
 


I have had a more difficult time on the advocacy front with Hudson because I
honestly don't know:

 * Where Hudson is going
 * Who is driving


I think a formal PMC might be an advantage. It would make things clearer.
 

While I am certain that Kohsuke's contributions to Hudson are going
to persist, it's unclear to me for how long, and whether that is wholly
dependent on InfraDNA's success and whether it his contributions to Hudson
(versus ICHCI) will only occur when it is mutually beneficial for InfraDNA.


If InfraDNA fails, I am certain that Kohsuke will be able to find a job... and I suspect the open source itch he has is one where he'd only take such a job if he can continue to contribute to Hudson.
 

The ambiguous relationship between the Hudson project and Oracle continues to
seemingly be unaddressed. If Oracle has any intentions with their involvement
with Hudson, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later as the current
situation is riddled with question marks. What do our former SCAs mean in terms
of current involvement? Does Oracle continue to have indefinite ownership of
code contributed to -core? Who actually owns "Hudson"? Who owns the source code?
Who is able to change the license for core? I need an adult!


IANAL, but if we create a derivative work, the SCA no longer applies to the derivative work.  The core license is MIT, why would we want to change that?
 

Some of these topics have been discussed between Kohsuke, Alan, Andrew and I,
which I think was incorrect. I feel it's disrespectful to have held so many
private discussions about these topics without looping in the greater developer
community, without which it is doubtful Hudson would be where it is today. For
that I sincereley apologize.

I think the problem is not that they are discussed in private, it's that you 4 are acting as an informal PMC.  It's fine for a PMC to discuss things in private.
 


I do hope we can resolve some of these questions, or at least start some
discussion around it. I do not like the feelings of frustration I've held that
have detracted from my advocacy work. Hudson's been good to me, I'd like to
continue to be good to it.



Ho hum; I hope my super-long email was, at the very least, easy to read. :)


Cheers,
-R. Tyler Ballance
--------------------------------------
 GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero
--------------------------------------


[1] http://InfraDNA.com
[2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Plugins



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Russ Tremain-2
Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project
BTW, IANAL either, but IMHO WTF use SFA IOF ENGLISH?

At 7:39 AM +0100 7/20/10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]> wrote:

Some of you may know me, for those that don't, I'm not a contributor to core,
nor a plugin developer. I run @hudsonci on twitter, and the Hudson blog on
www.hudson-labs.org. That said, take the following opinions with a grain of
salt knowing that my contributions are non-Java-based :).


I find myself stressed over the current lack of clear
direction/roadmap/governance for the Hudson project. "In the beginning" there
was Kohsuke, the benevolent dictator for life, being paid by Sun to work on
"stuff". Times were good, Kohsuke spent large amounts of time
fostering one of the powerhouse projects in the Java tools community.

At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required to
sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun relicense/etc the
code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.

You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.
IANAL, but

1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net project while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle. 

2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
 
Regardless, lots of people were hacking on Hudson, times were good.


Fast forward to today:

 * Oracle owns the "god mode" for the Hudson core, and has made no obvious
  moves to contribute or engage with the Hudson community (as far as I can
  tell)

IANAL but if we move hosting to somewhere else (i.e. we make a derivative work) then the "god mode" is effectively dead, especially as we make significant advances on the project... because the java.net version will then become out of date.
 
 * Kohsuke has started InfraDNA[1] deemed "The Hudson Company" which today
  announced a "Certified HudsonCI" package. It's too early to tell what ICHCI
  actually is (a fork of mainline Hudson vs. some other contraption with a
  juicy Hudson center)

When I met up with Kohsuke in June, we discussed briefly what his plans were for InfraDNA.  As I see it, ICHCI is a stabilised version of hudson with tested plugins well integrated and shipping by default.  Mix in some commercial license plugins that provide functionality not currently available (or not currently as well implemented) in free plugins, and you have something that corporations would hopefully be interested in.

The real question is how much longer will Kohsuke remain an active committer to core?

To differentiate the InfraDNA offer, you need to add value that is not available for free... if InfraDNA maintains a private fork of Core with some commercially licensed code then the ICHCI offer could provide commercial value... but the downside of such a fork is that the free plugins might not work... so you'd actually be stabbing yourself in the foot (as one of the key value adds for Hudson is the plugin community.... ok so some plugins could really do from propper testing, but if I really need that feature from plugin XYZ, I can do the testing myself)

So as I see it, if I were Kohsuke, I'd stay an active committer to core (it also allows you to say you are best placed to support Hudson) and I'd develop all new features as plugins, making the kick-ass ones commercially licensed.

So far, to me, that's what it looks like he's doing.
 
 * The Hudson project has an increasingly active plugin ecosystem (~300 plugins) [2]
 * Large portions of critical Hudson infrastructure owned and operated by Oracle (pretty
  much everything under hudson-ci.org)

We need to move everything off of Oracle owned kit, again IANAL but I see it as part of the requirements for neutralizing the SCA.
 


I have had a more difficult time on the advocacy front with Hudson because I
honestly don't know:

 * Where Hudson is going
 * Who is driving

I think a formal PMC might be an advantage. It would make things clearer.
 

While I am certain that Kohsuke's contributions to Hudson are going
to persist, it's unclear to me for how long, and whether that is wholly
dependent on InfraDNA's success and whether it his contributions to Hudson
(versus ICHCI) will only occur when it is mutually beneficial for InfraDNA.

If InfraDNA fails, I am certain that Kohsuke will be able to find a job... and I suspect the open source itch he has is one where he'd only take such a job if he can continue to contribute to Hudson.
 

The ambiguous relationship between the Hudson project and Oracle continues to
seemingly be unaddressed. If Oracle has any intentions with their involvement
with Hudson, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later as the current
situation is riddled with question marks. What do our former SCAs mean in terms
of current involvement? Does Oracle continue to have indefinite ownership of
code contributed to -core? Who actually owns "Hudson"? Who owns the source code?
Who is able to change the license for core? I need an adult!

IANAL, but if we create a derivative work, the SCA no longer applies to the derivative work.  The core license is MIT, why would we want to change that?
 

Some of these topics have been discussed between Kohsuke, Alan, Andrew and I,
which I think was incorrect. I feel it's disrespectful to have held so many
private discussions about these topics without looping in the greater developer
community, without which it is doubtful Hudson would be where it is today. For
that I sincereley apologize.

I think the problem is not that they are discussed in private, it's that you 4 are acting as an informal PMC.  It's fine for a PMC to discuss things in private.
 


I do hope we can resolve some of these questions, or at least start some
discussion around it. I do not like the feelings of frustration I've held that
have detracted from my advocacy work. Hudson's been good to me, I'd like to
continue to be good to it.



Ho hum; I hope my super-long email was, at the very least, easy to read. :)


Cheers,
-R. Tyler Ballance
--------------------------------------
 GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero
--------------------------------------


[1] http://InfraDNA.com
[2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Plugins

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Andrew Bayer
In reply to this post by stephenconnolly
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:


On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]> wrote:

At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required to
sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun relicense/etc the
code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.


You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.

IANAL, but

1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net project while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle. 

2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.

FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP, given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the current situation than I'd like.

A.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net.

I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
recent submissions have been recorded there.  I'll ping the Oracle
manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.

   - eduard/o

On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
> <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>
>         At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
>         were required to
>         sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
>         relicense/etc the
>         code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if
>         you will.
>
>
>     You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.
>
>     IANAL, but
>
>     1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net
>     <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by
>     Sun/Oracle.
>
>     2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then
>     the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.
>
>     3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their
>     own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new
>     there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and
>     under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to
>     the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
>
>
> FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
> given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
> SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
> very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
> legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the
> current situation than I'd like.
>
> A.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Andrew Bayer
FYI - I just mashed up the list of committers to hudson/main at http://fisheye.hudson-ci.org/users/Hudson/trunk/hudson/main (specifically those with at least 1 line of code changed) and the SCA list at https://sca.dev.java.net/CA_signatories.htm, and, well, even if you account for typos (i.e., I'm in the SCA list as "ababer"), the majority of committers don't have SCAs on file, apparently. I'm also not sure what the status of code from Sun/Oracle employees would be, since they didn't have SCAs either.

A.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart <[hidden email]> wrote:
The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net.

I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the recent submissions have been recorded there.  I'll ping the Oracle manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.

 - eduard/o


On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
<[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:



   On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]
   <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:


       At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
       were required to
       sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
       relicense/etc the
       code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if
       you will.


   You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.

   IANAL, but

   1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net
   <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by

   Sun/Oracle.

   2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then
   the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

   3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their
   own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new
   there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and
   under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to
   the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.


FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the
current situation than I'd like.

A.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
On 07/20/2010 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly<
> [hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required
>>>  to
>>>  sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
>>>  relicense/etc the
>>>  code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.
>>>
>>>
>>  You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.
>>
>>  IANAL, but
>>
>>  1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net project
>>  while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle.
>>
>>  2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then the SCA
>>  does not apply to that derivative work.
>>
>>  3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their own
>>  derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new there) and
>>  present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and under a different
>>  (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the original Hudson code,
>>  it will still be MIT licensed.
>>
>
> FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
> given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
> SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
> very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any legitimacy
> to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the current
> situation than I'd like.

IANAL either, but SCA is quite readable to a lay person like myself, and
I can confirm all three points that Stephen raises.


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Andrew Bayer
So what should we do about the committers to core without SCAs on record?

A.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 07/20/2010 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly<
[hidden email]>  wrote:



 On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance<[hidden email]>  wrote:


 At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core" were required
 to
 sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
 relicense/etc the
 code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if you will.


 You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.

 IANAL, but

 1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net project
 while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle.

 2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then the SCA
 does not apply to that derivative work.

 3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their own
 derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new there) and
 present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and under a different
 (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the original Hudson code,
 it will still be MIT licensed.


FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any legitimacy
to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the current
situation than I'd like.

IANAL either, but SCA is quite readable to a lay person like myself, and I can confirm all three points that Stephen raises.


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
Contributions done while they were Sun employees did not need an SCA.
Actually, while a Sun employee they could not sign an SCA (unless VP,
etc, etc).

Same should apply to Oracle employees.

I assume that "hudson/main" is the core only, right?  We were not asking
for SCAs for contributions outside the core.  Kohsuke thought this
arrangement was best to simplify development and encourage
contributions; I'd have preferred to keep things in two java.net
projects but the separation seems easy to grok and went along.

I need to check with others, but we can go through that list and look
for disconnects.

   - eduard/o

On 7/20/10 11:02 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

> FYI - I just mashed up the list of committers to hudson/main at
> http://fisheye.hudson-ci.org/users/Hudson/trunk/hudson/main
> (specifically those with at least 1 line of code changed) and the SCA
> list at https://sca.dev.java.net/CA_signatories.htm, and, well, even if
> you account for typos (i.e., I'm in the SCA list as "ababer"), the
> majority of committers don't have SCAs on file, apparently. I'm also not
> sure what the status of code from Sun/Oracle employees would be, since
> they didn't have SCAs either.
>
> A.
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net
>     <http://sca.dev.java.net>.
>
>     I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
>     recent submissions have been recorded there.  I'll ping the Oracle
>     manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.
>
>       - eduard/o
>
>
>     On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
>         <[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>             On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance
>         <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>         <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>
>
>                 At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
>                 were required to
>                 sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking)
>         let Sun
>                 relicense/etc the
>                 code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god
>         mode" if
>                 you will.
>
>
>             You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so
>         concerned by this.
>
>             IANAL, but
>
>             1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the
>         hudson.dev.java.net <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
>         <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by
>
>             Sun/Oracle.
>
>             2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative
>         work, then
>             the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.
>
>             3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create
>         their
>             own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so
>         nothing new
>             there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright
>         Oracle and
>             under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do
>         nothing to
>             the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
>
>
>         FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of
>         the IP,
>         given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to
>         the signed
>         SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme
>         litigiousness. I am
>         very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
>         legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more
>         ambiguity in the
>         current situation than I'd like.
>
>         A.
>
>
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Bayer
OK, I've talked with the proper owners at Oracle on this.  Denis is on
vacation but Duncan is around and he says that he will help normalize
the SCA situation.

I've been involved on that in the past and still am with GlassFish, so
I'll help him get started.

Hopefully this will not be too hard to do; more later in the week.

   - eduard/o

On 7/20/10 11:52 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

> So what should we do about the committers to core without SCAs on record?
>
> A.
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 07/20/2010 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly<
>         [hidden email]
>         <mailto:[hidden email]>>  wrote:
>
>
>
>               On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler
>             Ballance<[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>               wrote:
>
>
>                   At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's
>                 "core" were required
>                   to
>                   sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking)
>                 let Sun
>                   relicense/etc the
>                   code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god
>                 mode" if you will.
>
>
>               You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so
>             concerned by this.
>
>               IANAL, but
>
>               1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the
>             hudson.dev.java.net <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project
>               while owned and managed by Sun/Oracle.
>
>               2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative
>             work, then the SCA
>               does not apply to that derivative work.
>
>               3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to
>             create their own
>               derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so
>             nothing new there) and
>               present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and
>             under a different
>               (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to the
>             original Hudson code,
>               it will still be MIT licensed.
>
>
>         FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of
>         the IP,
>         given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to
>         the signed
>         SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme
>         litigiousness. I am
>         very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
>         legitimacy
>         to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the
>         current
>         situation than I'd like.
>
>
>     IANAL either, but SCA is quite readable to a lay person like myself,
>     and I can confirm all three points that Stephen raises.
>
>
>     --
>     Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by R. Tyler Croy

On 07/19/2010 09:51 PM, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:

> Fast forward to today:
>
>   * Oracle owns the "god mode" for the Hudson core, and has made no obvious
>     moves to contribute or engage with the Hudson community (as far as I can
>     tell)
>   * Kohsuke has started InfraDNA[1] deemed "The Hudson Company" which today
>     announced a "Certified HudsonCI" package. It's too early to tell what ICHCI
>     actually is (a fork of mainline Hudson vs. some other contraption with a
>     juicy Hudson center)
>   * The Hudson project has an increasingly active plugin ecosystem (~300 plugins) [2]
>   * Large portions of critical Hudson infrastructure owned and operated by Oracle (pretty
>     much everything under hudson-ci.org)
>
>
> I have had a more difficult time on the advocacy front with Hudson because I
> honestly don't know:
>
>   * Where Hudson is going
>   * Who is driving
>
>
> While I am certain that Kohsuke's contributions to Hudson are going
> to persist, it's unclear to me for how long, and whether that is wholly
> dependent on InfraDNA's success and whether it his contributions to Hudson
> (versus ICHCI) will only occur when it is mutually beneficial for InfraDNA.

Stephen captured my intention here nicely; My plan for ICHCI is really
(1) as a vehicle to offer value-add commercial plugins, (2) as a
stabilized version of Hudson, and (3) as a way to deliver more plugins
pre-packaged.

So it's in my own interest to remain very active in the Hudson core, and
I intend to do so. And while I have been spending less time on Hudson
than I used to, I hope I've been still doing an OK job pushing the
project forward and delivering releases.

It also doesn't make sense for me (or for anyone, really) to fork
Hudson, as the Hudson community is of substantial value by itself.


> The ambiguous relationship between the Hudson project and Oracle continues to
> seemingly be unaddressed. If Oracle has any intentions with their involvement
> with Hudson, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later as the current
> situation is riddled with question marks. What do our former SCAs mean in terms
> of current involvement? Does Oracle continue to have indefinite ownership of
> code contributed to -core? Who actually owns "Hudson"? Who owns the source code?
> Who is able to change the license for core? I need an adult!

SCA is not just beneficial for Oracle, but it's also beneficial for the
community, too --- one such benefit is that it commits contributers to
making relevant patents available.

For these reasons, I now think it's a good idea to resume asking SCA for
core contributions, even though Oracle isn't really showing an
involvement. It maintains a simpler IP story, and given the MIT license,
I don't see any downside to contributers.



To answer your questions, SCAs currently in place still stand --- your
current and future contributions to the Hudson project is bound by SCA.

And no, technically speaking Sun/Oracle had never and does not "own the
code contributed to core" --- those are still owned by individual
contributers (and their employers, depending on the employment agreement
of the contributer.) It's just that, with SCA, each contributer granted
Oracle a set of rights that enables it to act as if it's the sole
copyright owner. This is a fine but important difference, as we are not
transfering copyrights with SCA, unlike Apache.

The name "Hudson" is loosely speaking owned by Oracle. This rights arise
from the fact that they've been using this name long enough.

The ownership of the source code I've already mentioned.

Wrt relicensing, SCA explicitly grants Oracle the ability to relicense
the source code.

I hope that clarifies some of the questions you raised.

> Some of these topics have been discussed between Kohsuke, Alan, Andrew and I,
> which I think was incorrect. I feel it's disrespectful to have held so many
> private discussions about these topics without looping in the greater developer
> community, without which it is doubtful Hudson would be where it is today. For
> that I sincereley apologize.
>
>
> I do hope we can resolve some of these questions, or at least start some
> discussion around it. I do not like the feelings of frustration I've held that
> have detracted from my advocacy work. Hudson's been good to me, I'd like to
> continue to be good to it.
>
> Ho hum; I hope my super-long email was, at the very least, easy to read. :)



--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

R. Tyler Croy

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:

>
> On 07/19/2010 09:51 PM, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:
> >Fast forward to today:
> >
> >  * Oracle owns the "god mode" for the Hudson core, and has made no obvious
> >    moves to contribute or engage with the Hudson community (as far as I can
> >    tell)
> >  * Kohsuke has started InfraDNA[1] deemed "The Hudson Company" which today
> >    announced a "Certified HudsonCI" package. It's too early to tell what ICHCI
> >    actually is (a fork of mainline Hudson vs. some other contraption with a
> >    juicy Hudson center)
> >  * The Hudson project has an increasingly active plugin ecosystem (~300 plugins) [2]
> >  * Large portions of critical Hudson infrastructure owned and operated by Oracle (pretty
> >    much everything under hudson-ci.org)
> >
> >
> >I have had a more difficult time on the advocacy front with Hudson because I
> >honestly don't know:
> >
> >  * Where Hudson is going
> >  * Who is driving
> >
> >
> >While I am certain that Kohsuke's contributions to Hudson are going
> >to persist, it's unclear to me for how long, and whether that is wholly
> >dependent on InfraDNA's success and whether it his contributions to Hudson
> >(versus ICHCI) will only occur when it is mutually beneficial for InfraDNA.
>
> Stephen captured my intention here nicely; My plan for ICHCI is
> really (1) as a vehicle to offer value-add commercial plugins, (2)
> as a stabilized version of Hudson, and (3) as a way to deliver more
> plugins pre-packaged.
>
> So it's in my own interest to remain very active in the Hudson core,
> and I intend to do so. And while I have been spending less time on
> Hudson than I used to, I hope I've been still doing an OK job
> pushing the project forward and delivering releases.
>
> It also doesn't make sense for me (or for anyone, really) to fork
> Hudson, as the Hudson community is of substantial value by itself.

I agree, which is why I wanted to raise the issue. Speaking from the advocacy
side of things, Hudson would not be getting nearly as much use if it weren't
for developers contributing numerous plugins and tutorials to cover nearly
every use-case imaginable.


It makes sense in my mind for you (Kohsuke) to remain the head of the Hudson
project, I just wanted to get a clear story on what the future is going to look
like now that you have other commercial interests tugging at your side. At the
end of the day, for me at least, it's a matter of transparency and
understanding what kind of expectations to hold with regards to the project.


> >The ambiguous relationship between the Hudson project and Oracle continues to
> >seemingly be unaddressed. If Oracle has any intentions with their involvement
> >with Hudson, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later as the current
> >situation is riddled with question marks. What do our former SCAs mean in terms
> >of current involvement? Does Oracle continue to have indefinite ownership of
> >code contributed to -core? Who actually owns "Hudson"? Who owns the source code?
> >Who is able to change the license for core? I need an adult!
>
> SCA is not just beneficial for Oracle, but it's also beneficial for
> the community, too --- one such benefit is that it commits
> contributers to making relevant patents available.
>
> For these reasons, I now think it's a good idea to resume asking SCA
> for core contributions, even though Oracle isn't really showing an
> involvement. It maintains a simpler IP story, and given the MIT
> license, I don't see any downside to contributers.
I certainly agree, while I disagree with the current IP legal landscape
regarding patents, I think continuing with the SCAs is a good means of adding
that piece of mind to those investing in using Hudson or building atop Hudson.

Thanks giving a good clear stance on the SCAs, as I mentioned in IRC, they're a
piece of the puzzle and my concerns

> To answer your questions, SCAs currently in place still stand ---
> your current and future contributions to the Hudson project is bound
> by SCA.


So contributors will continue to grant Oracle special copyright powers? That's
awfully kind of them ;). I'm fine with that, it's not my code to begin with
(not being a contributor to core that is :)), I could see it being a hiccup in
the future depending on Oracle's level of involvement and interaction with the
Hudson community.



The other major point that I had that I don't feel we've addressed, which I
believe Andrew is looking into, is the specifics around Oracle owned and
operated equipment powering the Hudson project. The Java.net terms of service
and community guidelines gives us a rough idea of what to expect with hosting
Subversion and other content within their system, but I do not currently know
what (if any) agreements and terms the Wiki and JIRA are under.

I don't expect to have any answers to this one right away, but again I merely
aim for clarity here. I'd like to understand what level of commitment Oracle
has to continuing to host the wiki and issue-tracker, and if they have no
interest, what we can do to bring them over to Hudson Labs (for example)


Cheers,
-R. Tyler Ballance
--------------------------------------
  GitHub: http://github.com/rtyler
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/agentdero


attachment0 (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project - documentation

Jan Ruzicka
Hi

The project documentation is something to be a bit concerned about.
I'm trying to learn how to properly implement plugin.
I find it quite hard to find correct information.
Lots of links are pointing to nowhere and some information is outdated.

Do I understand correctly that starting from "Extend Hudson"[1] should get me to the needed information?

One of the main articles "Extension points"[2] has links that are pointing to javadoc.
Most of the references are broken as they are pointing to urls in form:
     http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson/tasks/BuildStep 
instead of
     http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson.tasks.BuildStep

First I thought that's easy just change '/' to '.' for referenced names.

I open the page and jump to links start changing.
Looking at the source some of the links are right some are mangled.
( [A|o.m.g.A@javadoc]   vs.  [A|o/m/g/A@javadoc] )

After 20 minutes of changing I realize that there is a comment at the top of the page.
It mentions the extension-point-lister.

ExtensionPointLister.java is the one responsible for the confusion as it is replacing the '.' with '/'.
      fullName.replace('.','/')

Theoretically the '/' for javadoc should be fine at least the Confluence[3] is claiming it.

1) My source of concern is that I'm new to the hudson project and I can't see what is the correct information.

2) When I find bug as mentioned above I'm not sure what is at fault.
In this example case: Is it  extension-point-lister for changing the class names?
or  Is it wrong setup of Confluence?

3) It is even more concerning that the issue was present for a year.
Comments on the "Extension points" page show at least July 21, 2009.

I understand that hudson is in stage of a rapid development and major changes.
I also really appreciate what it can do.

At this point, I'm really overwhelmed by amount of information I need to learn to be able to contribute.
Any issue distracting me from learning or getting a wrong/old information is really irritating.

Thanks for the great tool.

Sincerely
Jan Ruzicka


[1] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extend+Hudson
[2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extension+points
[3] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/About+this+Confluence

Jan Ruzicka
Senior Software Engineer
Comtech Mobile Datacom Corporation
20430 Century Blvd, Germantown, MD 20874
Office: 240-686-3300
Fax: 240-686-3301
 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please so notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project - documentation

Alan Harder-2
Thanks for tracking that down.  I removed the . to / conversion in
extension-point-lister and the comment that /-separated is still
supported for @javadoc links.

    - Alan


Jan Ruzicka wrote:

> Hi
>
> The project documentation is something to be a bit concerned about.
> I'm trying to learn how to properly implement plugin.
> I find it quite hard to find correct information.
> Lots of links are pointing to nowhere and some information is outdated.
>
> Do I understand correctly that starting from "Extend Hudson"[1] should get me to the needed information?
>
> One of the main articles "Extension points"[2] has links that are pointing to javadoc.
> Most of the references are broken as they are pointing to urls in form:
>      http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson/tasks/BuildStep 
> instead of
>      http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson.tasks.BuildStep
>
> First I thought that's easy just change '/' to '.' for referenced names.
>
> I open the page and jump to links start changing.
> Looking at the source some of the links are right some are mangled.
> ( [A|o.m.g.A@javadoc]   vs.  [A|o/m/g/A@javadoc] )
>
> After 20 minutes of changing I realize that there is a comment at the top of the page.
> It mentions the extension-point-lister.
>
> ExtensionPointLister.java is the one responsible for the confusion as it is replacing the '.' with '/'.
>       fullName.replace('.','/')
>
> Theoretically the '/' for javadoc should be fine at least the Confluence[3] is claiming it.
>
> 1) My source of concern is that I'm new to the hudson project and I can't see what is the correct information.
>
> 2) When I find bug as mentioned above I'm not sure what is at fault.
> In this example case: Is it  extension-point-lister for changing the class names?
> or  Is it wrong setup of Confluence?
>
> 3) It is even more concerning that the issue was present for a year.
> Comments on the "Extension points" page show at least July 21, 2009.
>
> I understand that hudson is in stage of a rapid development and major changes.
> I also really appreciate what it can do.
>
> At this point, I'm really overwhelmed by amount of information I need to learn to be able to contribute.
> Any issue distracting me from learning or getting a wrong/old information is really irritating.
>
> Thanks for the great tool.
>
> Sincerely
> Jan Ruzicka
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extend+Hudson
> [2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extension+points
> [3] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/About+this+Confluence
>
> Jan Ruzicka
>
>  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:

The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net.

I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the recent submissions have been recorded there.  I'll ping the Oracle manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.


Do you know at Oracle who is, and would that person have the authority to hand over all the CLAs to Kohsuke?

 - eduard/o

On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
<[hidden email]
<[hidden email]>> wrote:



   On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]
   <[hidden email]>> wrote:


       At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
       were required to
       sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
       relicense/etc the
       code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if
       you will.


   You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so concerned by this.

   IANAL, but

   1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net
   <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by
   Sun/Oracle.

   2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then
   the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

   3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their
   own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new
   there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and
   under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do nothing to
   the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.


FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the
current situation than I'd like.

A.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...

 -- Thoreau 



Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth.

 -- Unknown



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:

Contributions done while they were Sun employees did not need an SCA. Actually, while a Sun employee they could not sign an SCA (unless VP, etc, etc).

Same should apply to Oracle employees.


So I'll start here because this sounds ambiguous. The whole point of the contributor license agreements (CLAs) at Apache and Eclipse is so that there is providence over who contributed code and that said code can rightfully have said license applied. In our case the MIT license. If all the CLAs are not in place for people who contributed code, or all the CLAs are not in possession of the project then none of this can be validated which means it's not a good situation. This whole discussion sounds vague with respect to providence, and didn't pass muster when I talked to the IP lawyer at the Eclipse Foundation. 

1) Can all the CLAs be put in one spot where Kohsuke/Andrew (or whatever the effective equivalent of your project management committee is) can compare the commit logs with the ids of the CLAs on hand.

2) Can someone produce a copy of the agreement Sun employees had while contributing code and the text of the SCA? I would like a lawyer to look at it. I don't understand how there is clarity when most of the core code written by Kohsuke while at Sun is fine if the SCA can't be applied to the code in question. It's not hard to figure out but let's have a lawyer look at it.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think the license of the code is, it means nothing unless there is a body of executed CLAs which proves this. If Hudson were to go to a place like the Eclipse Foundation the code would have to undergo a rigorous vetting process. I think what the Eclipse Foundation has is a good model and it can't hurt trying to use it here.

I'll be perfectly honest in that I have an interest in making a Maven-focused distribution of Hudson and according to our lawyers that would be a mistake with the code in its current state. When talking to the IP lawyer at Eclipse she said the risk to downstream users is pretty small. But she said anyone wanting to make a product could potentially be at great risk and that the time should be taken now to clear up any potential problems. 

If we work on 1) and 2) and possibly work on asking Oracle to grant all license and copyright to the Kohsuke/InfraDNA or a PMC here that would ultimately be the best situation. Oracle has set precent making contributions like this to Eclipse and I think it would in Oracles best interest to do the same for the Hudson project.

A heathy open source project cannot rely on an external commercial entity to manage its IP, or have any claim to the IP. It either has to be something like Apache or Eclipse where there is a clear legal entity governing to providence of the code. Or a setup like Sonatype where for all our projects we have clear CLAs that are executed by everyone contributing code and we own all the IP. An Apache/Eclipse setup, or InfraDNA doing everything would both be great. The current situation really wouldn't be acceptable to any lawyer at any reasonably large organization. I believe the IP is not in a clear state which is a bad thing for the project. I also don't believe it would be that hard to clean up. And I will happily contribute legal resources to help clean up the IP in the way the project wants.

I assume that "hudson/main" is the core only, right?  We were not asking for SCAs for contributions outside the core.  Kohsuke thought this arrangement was best to simplify development and encourage contributions; I'd have preferred to keep things in two java.net projects but the separation seems easy to grok and went along.

I need to check with others, but we can go through that list and look for disconnects.

 - eduard/o

On 7/20/10 11:02 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
FYI - I just mashed up the list of committers to hudson/main at
http://fisheye.hudson-ci.org/users/Hudson/trunk/hudson/main
(specifically those with at least 1 line of code changed) and the SCA
list at https://sca.dev.java.net/CA_signatories.htm, and, well, even if
you account for typos (i.e., I'm in the SCA list as "ababer"), the
majority of committers don't have SCAs on file, apparently. I'm also not
sure what the status of code from Sun/Oracle employees would be, since
they didn't have SCAs either.

A.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
<[hidden email] <[hidden email]>> wrote:

   The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net
   <http://sca.dev.java.net>.

   I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
   recent submissions have been recorded there.  I'll ping the Oracle
   manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.

     - eduard/o


   On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

       On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
       <[hidden email]
       <[hidden email]>
       <[hidden email]
       <[hidden email]>>> wrote:



           On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance
       <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
       <[hidden email] <[hidden email]>>> wrote:


               At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
               were required to
               sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking)
       let Sun
               relicense/etc the
               code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god
       mode" if
               you will.


           You seem worried about the "god mode".  I am not so
       concerned by this.

           IANAL, but

           1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the
       hudson.dev.java.net <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
       <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by

           Sun/Oracle.

           2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative
       work, then
           the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

           3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create
       their
           own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so
       nothing new
           there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright
       Oracle and
           under a different (e.g. commercial) license.  They can do
       nothing to
           the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.


       FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of
       the IP,
       given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to
       the signed
       SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme
       litigiousness. I am
       very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
       legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more
       ambiguity in the
       current situation than I'd like.

       A.


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <[hidden email]>
   For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
   <[hidden email]>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

To do two things at once is to do neither.
 
 -—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.



Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
In reply to this post by Jason van Zyl
Dennis (Eng Management) and Duncan (Product Management) are responsible
for Hudson at Oracle.  Dennis is on vacation right now and I am helping
in the meantime.

If you mean transfering the IP to Kohsuke, neither Dennis, nor Duncan,
nor their EVP would have the authority to do this.  It would go higher
up the chain, maybe to the top.

But, regardless of whether the above set of requirements was achievable,
I agree with Kohsuke:

 >>>
For these reasons, I now think it's a good idea to resume asking SCA for
core contributions, even though Oracle isn't really showing an
involvement. It maintains a simpler IP story, and given the MIT license,
I don't see any downside to contributers.
 >>>

   - eduard/o

On 7/21/10 9:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:
>
>> The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net
>> <http://sca.dev.java.net>.
>>
>> I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
>> recent submissions have been recorded there. I'll ping the Oracle
>> manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.
>>
>
> Do you know at Oracle who is, and would that person have the authority
> to hand over all the CLAs to Kohsuke?
>
>> - eduard/o
>>
>> On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
>>> were required to
>>> sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking) let Sun
>>> relicense/etc the
>>> code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god mode" if
>>> you will.
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem worried about the "god mode". I am not so concerned by this.
>>>
>>> IANAL, but
>>>
>>> 1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the hudson.dev.java.net
>>> <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
>>> <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by
>>> Sun/Oracle.
>>>
>>> 2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative work, then
>>> the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.
>>>
>>> 3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create their
>>> own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so nothing new
>>> there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright Oracle and
>>> under a different (e.g. commercial) license. They can do nothing to
>>> the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of the IP,
>>> given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to the signed
>>> SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme litigiousness. I am
>>> very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
>>> legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more ambiguity in the
>>> current situation than I'd like.
>>>
>>> A.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
> elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
> and sit softly on your shoulder ...
>
> -- Thoreau
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> We all have problems. How we deal with them is a measure of our worth.
>
> -- Unknown
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2
In reply to this post by Jason van Zyl
Eliding and replying:

 > 1) Can all the CLAs be put in one spot where Kohsuke/Andrew (or
 > whatever the effective equivalent of your project management
 > committee is) can compare the commit logs with the ids of the CLAs
 > on hand.

That is the purpose of sca.dev.java.net.  I am in the process of taking
all the SCAs that had been submitted and had been processed by Kohsuke
(and others), double checking them, and then recording them at that site.

We probably also need to improve the process of announcing new SCAs
being approved so it is visible to all of the Hudson DEV community.  I
can work on this with the new Oracle team - I've done similar things for
GlassFish.

 > 2) Can someone produce a copy of the agreement Sun employees had
 > while contributing code and the text of the SCA?

It was part of the Sun employee contract; and it is part of the Oracle
employee.  I believe this would be considered company confidential
information.

Note that a number of companies, like RedHat, IBM, Ericsson, Yahoo!,
Google, (old BEA), (old Oracle), etc, etc. are listed at
sca.dev.java.net, and their employees are covered by the SCA.  By your
argument you would need to look at the contracts for all these companies.

 > I would like a lawyer to look at it.

See above about company confidential information.

 > possibly work on asking Oracle to grant all
 > license and copyright to the Kohsuke/InfraDNA
 > or a PMC here that would
 > ultimately be the best situation.

See my previous email.

 > A healthy open source project cannot rely on an external commercial
 > entity to manage its IP, or have any claim to the IP.

I believe there are other arrangements, like...

 > Or a setup like Sonatype where for
 > all our projects we have clear CLAs that are executed by everyone
 > contributing code and we own all the IP.

We believe that we have this for the core, modulo the transition hicup,
which seems to be mostly a problem with recording things at
sca.dev.java.net - we seem to have most of the SCAs.  I'll know by the
end of today.

A valid discussion is whether to have a sharper separation between the
core (under SCA) and the plugins.  There are tradeoffs in that, though;
let's first get through this normalization pass.

        - eduard/o


On 7/21/10 9:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:
>
>> Contributions done while they were Sun employees did not need an SCA.
>> Actually, while a Sun employee they could not sign an SCA (unless VP,
>> etc, etc).
>>
>> Same should apply to Oracle employees.
>>
>
> So I'll start here because this sounds ambiguous. The whole point of the
> contributor license agreements (CLAs) at Apache and Eclipse is so that
> there is providence over who contributed code and that said code can
> rightfully have said license applied. In our case the MIT license. If
> all the CLAs are not in place for people who contributed code, or all
> the CLAs are not in possession of the project then none of this can be
> validated which means it's not a good situation. This whole discussion
> sounds vague with respect to providence, and didn't pass muster when I
> talked to the IP lawyer at the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> 1) Can all the CLAs be put in one spot where Kohsuke/Andrew (or whatever
> the effective equivalent of your project management committee is) can
> compare the commit logs with the ids of the CLAs on hand.
>
> 2) Can someone produce a copy of the agreement Sun employees had while
> contributing code and the text of the SCA? I would like a lawyer to look
> at it. I don't understand how there is clarity when most of the core
> code written by Kohsuke while at Sun is fine if the SCA can't be applied
> to the code in question. It's not hard to figure out but let's have a
> lawyer look at it.
>
> Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think the license of the code is,
> it means nothing unless there is a body of executed CLAs which proves
> this. If Hudson were to go to a place like the Eclipse Foundation the
> code would have to undergo a rigorous vetting process. I think what the
> Eclipse Foundation has is a good model and it can't hurt trying to use
> it here.
>
> I'll be perfectly honest in that I have an interest in making a
> Maven-focused distribution of Hudson and according to our lawyers that
> would be a mistake with the code in its current state. When talking to
> the IP lawyer at Eclipse she said the risk to downstream users is pretty
> small. But she said anyone wanting to make a product could potentially
> be at great risk and that the time should be taken now to clear up any
> potential problems.
>
> If we work on 1) and 2) and possibly work on asking Oracle to grant all
> license and copyright to the Kohsuke/InfraDNA or a PMC here that would
> ultimately be the best situation. Oracle has set precent making
> contributions like this to Eclipse and I think it would in Oracles best
> interest to do the same for the Hudson project.
>
> A heathy open source project cannot rely on an external commercial
> entity to manage its IP, or have any claim to the IP. It either has to
> be something like Apache or Eclipse where there is a clear legal entity
> governing to providence of the code. Or a setup like Sonatype where for
> all our projects we have clear CLAs that are executed by everyone
> contributing code and we own all the IP. An Apache/Eclipse setup, or
> InfraDNA doing everything would both be great. The current situation
> really wouldn't be acceptable to any lawyer at any reasonably large
> organization. I believe the IP is not in a clear state which is a bad
> thing for the project. I also don't believe it would be that hard to
> clean up. And I will happily contribute legal resources to help clean up
> the IP in the way the project wants.
>
>> I assume that "hudson/main" is the core only, right? We were not
>> asking for SCAs for contributions outside the core. Kohsuke thought
>> this arrangement was best to simplify development and encourage
>> contributions; I'd have preferred to keep things in two java.net
>> <http://java.net> projects but the separation seems easy to grok and
>> went along.
>>
>> I need to check with others, but we can go through that list and look
>> for disconnects.
>>
>> - eduard/o
>>
>> On 7/20/10 11:02 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>>> FYI - I just mashed up the list of committers to hudson/main at
>>> http://fisheye.hudson-ci.org/users/Hudson/trunk/hudson/main
>>> (specifically those with at least 1 line of code changed) and the SCA
>>> list at https://sca.dev.java.net/CA_signatories.htm, and, well, even if
>>> you account for typos (i.e., I'm in the SCA list as "ababer"), the
>>> majority of committers don't have SCAs on file, apparently. I'm also not
>>> sure what the status of code from Sun/Oracle employees would be, since
>>> they didn't have SCAs either.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net
>>> <http://sca.dev.java.net>
>>> <http://sca.dev.java.net>.
>>>
>>> I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
>>> recent submissions have been recorded there. I'll ping the Oracle
>>> manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.
>>>
>>> - eduard/o
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance
>>> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
>>> were required to
>>> sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking)
>>> let Sun
>>> relicense/etc the
>>> code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god
>>> mode" if
>>> you will.
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem worried about the "god mode". I am not so
>>> concerned by this.
>>>
>>> IANAL, but
>>>
>>> 1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the
>>> hudson.dev.java.net <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
>>> <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
>>> <http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by
>>>
>>> Sun/Oracle.
>>>
>>> 2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative
>>> work, then
>>> the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.
>>>
>>> 3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create
>>> their
>>> own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so
>>> nothing new
>>> there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright
>>> Oracle and
>>> under a different (e.g. commercial) license. They can do
>>> nothing to
>>> the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of
>>> the IP,
>>> given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to
>>> the signed
>>> SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme
>>> litigiousness. I am
>>> very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
>>> legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more
>>> ambiguity in the
>>> current situation than I'd like.
>>>
>>> A.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> To do two things at once is to do neither.
>
> -—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project - documentation

Kohsuke Kawaguchi-3
In reply to this post by Jan Ruzicka
On 07/20/2010 08:43 PM, Jan Ruzicka wrote:

> Hi
>
> The project documentation is something to be a bit concerned about.
> I'm trying to learn how to properly implement plugin.
> I find it quite hard to find correct information.
> Lots of links are pointing to nowhere and some information is outdated.
>
> Do I understand correctly that starting from "Extend Hudson"[1] should get me to the needed information?
>
> One of the main articles "Extension points"[2] has links that are pointing to javadoc.
> Most of the references are broken as they are pointing to urls in form:
>       http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson/tasks/BuildStep
> instead of
>       http://hudson-ci.org/javadoc/byShortName/hudson.tasks.BuildStep
>
> First I thought that's easy just change '/' to '.' for referenced names.

This is actually more of a historical problem. The 'byShortName' url
should just have the short name of the class, like
/javadoc/byShortName/BuildStep. If you see Wiki page that does
[hudson.tasks.BuildStep@javadoc], then it should be replaced to just
[BuildStep@javadoc] for simplicity.

I guess on the server side we should support both.

> I open the page and jump to links start changing.
> Looking at the source some of the links are right some are mangled.
> ( [A|o.m.g.A@javadoc]   vs.  [A|o/m/g/A@javadoc] )
>
> After 20 minutes of changing I realize that there is a comment at the top of the page.
> It mentions the extension-point-lister.
>
> ExtensionPointLister.java is the one responsible for the confusion as it is replacing the '.' with '/'.
>        fullName.replace('.','/')
>
> Theoretically the '/' for javadoc should be fine at least the Confluence[3] is claiming it.
>
> 1) My source of concern is that I'm new to the hudson project and I can't see what is the correct information.
>
> 2) When I find bug as mentioned above I'm not sure what is at fault.
> In this example case: Is it  extension-point-lister for changing the class names?
> or  Is it wrong setup of Confluence?
>
> 3) It is even more concerning that the issue was present for a year.
> Comments on the "Extension points" page show at least July 21, 2009.
>
> I understand that hudson is in stage of a rapid development and major changes.
> I also really appreciate what it can do.
>
> At this point, I'm really overwhelmed by amount of information I need to learn to be able to contribute.
> Any issue distracting me from learning or getting a wrong/old information is really irritating.
>
> Thanks for the great tool.
>
> Sincerely
> Jan Ruzicka
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extend+Hudson
> [2] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/Extension+points
> [3] http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/About+this+Confluence
>
> Jan Ruzicka
> Senior Software Engineer
> Comtech Mobile Datacom Corporation
> 20430 Century Blvd, Germantown, MD 20874
> Office: 240-686-3300
> Fax: 240-686-3301
>
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please so notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.
>
>


--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi | InfraDNA, Inc. | http://infradna.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Concerned about the future of the Hudson project

Jason van Zyl
In reply to this post by Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart-2

On Jul 21, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:

Eliding and replying:

> 1) Can all the CLAs be put in one spot where Kohsuke/Andrew (or
> whatever the effective equivalent of your project management
> committee is) can compare the commit logs with the ids of the CLAs
> on hand.

That is the purpose of sca.dev.java.net.  I am in the process of taking all the SCAs that had been submitted and had been processed by Kohsuke (and others), double checking them, and then recording them at that site.

We probably also need to improve the process of announcing new SCAs being approved so it is visible to all of the Hudson DEV community.  I can work on this with the new Oracle team - I've done similar things for GlassFish.

> 2) Can someone produce a copy of the agreement Sun employees had
> while contributing code and the text of the SCA?

It was part of the Sun employee contract; and it is part of the Oracle employee.  I believe this would be considered company confidential information.

Note that a number of companies, like RedHat, IBM, Ericsson, Yahoo!, Google, (old BEA), (old Oracle), etc, etc. are listed at sca.dev.java.net, and their employees are covered by the SCA.  By your argument you would need to look at the contracts for all these companies.


This just sounds like one big show stopper for a clear path to provenance of the code. If no external entity can validate that a Sun/Oracle employee contract doesn't contradict the SCA therefore invalidating the SCA for said employee then that doesn't help a whole lot. To me that puts Kohsuke's code potentially in limbo, and at least one current Oracle employee that is contributing a lot.

> I would like a lawyer to look at it.

See above about company confidential information.


This is why the Eclipse Foundation and Apache makes sure that organizations sign Corporate Contributor Agreement Licenses (CCLAs). That anyone is barred from determining the relationship between the employee agreement and the SCA impossible to vet if the project were taken to the Eclipse Foundation. 

Sorry, but that should be an unacceptable situation to anyone involved in the project. I hope people realize that without a clear understanding of how an employee agreement affects the SCA you have no code provenance. And for a potentially very substantial part of the project. If Hudson could follow in the footsteps of Toplink where Oracle contributed everything wholus bolus to the Eclipse Foundation I honestly think that is potentially the best thing for the project. I can understand why Oracle might not want to give the code to an individual company -- it would be like Apache contributing Maven to Sonatype -- but to the Eclipse Foundation is a different matter all together. And a matter that has precedent.

> possibly work on asking Oracle to grant all
> license and copyright to the Kohsuke/InfraDNA
> or a PMC here that would
> ultimately be the best situation.

See my previous email.

> A healthy open source project cannot rely on an external commercial
> entity to manage its IP, or have any claim to the IP.

I believe there are other arrangements, like...

> Or a setup like Sonatype where for
> all our projects we have clear CLAs that are executed by everyone
> contributing code and we own all the IP.

We believe that we have this for the core, modulo the transition hicup, which seems to be mostly a problem with recording things at sca.dev.java.net - we seem to have most of the SCAs.  I'll know by the end of today.

A valid discussion is whether to have a sharper separation between the core (under SCA) and the plugins.  There are tradeoffs in that, though; let's first get through this normalization pass.

- eduard/o


On 7/21/10 9:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Jul 20, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart wrote:

Contributions done while they were Sun employees did not need an SCA.
Actually, while a Sun employee they could not sign an SCA (unless VP,
etc, etc).

Same should apply to Oracle employees.


So I'll start here because this sounds ambiguous. The whole point of the
contributor license agreements (CLAs) at Apache and Eclipse is so that
there is providence over who contributed code and that said code can
rightfully have said license applied. In our case the MIT license. If
all the CLAs are not in place for people who contributed code, or all
the CLAs are not in possession of the project then none of this can be
validated which means it's not a good situation. This whole discussion
sounds vague with respect to providence, and didn't pass muster when I
talked to the IP lawyer at the Eclipse Foundation.

1) Can all the CLAs be put in one spot where Kohsuke/Andrew (or whatever
the effective equivalent of your project management committee is) can
compare the commit logs with the ids of the CLAs on hand.

2) Can someone produce a copy of the agreement Sun employees had while
contributing code and the text of the SCA? I would like a lawyer to look
at it. I don't understand how there is clarity when most of the core
code written by Kohsuke while at Sun is fine if the SCA can't be applied
to the code in question. It's not hard to figure out but let's have a
lawyer look at it.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think the license of the code is,
it means nothing unless there is a body of executed CLAs which proves
this. If Hudson were to go to a place like the Eclipse Foundation the
code would have to undergo a rigorous vetting process. I think what the
Eclipse Foundation has is a good model and it can't hurt trying to use
it here.

I'll be perfectly honest in that I have an interest in making a
Maven-focused distribution of Hudson and according to our lawyers that
would be a mistake with the code in its current state. When talking to
the IP lawyer at Eclipse she said the risk to downstream users is pretty
small. But she said anyone wanting to make a product could potentially
be at great risk and that the time should be taken now to clear up any
potential problems.

If we work on 1) and 2) and possibly work on asking Oracle to grant all
license and copyright to the Kohsuke/InfraDNA or a PMC here that would
ultimately be the best situation. Oracle has set precent making
contributions like this to Eclipse and I think it would in Oracles best
interest to do the same for the Hudson project.

A heathy open source project cannot rely on an external commercial
entity to manage its IP, or have any claim to the IP. It either has to
be something like Apache or Eclipse where there is a clear legal entity
governing to providence of the code. Or a setup like Sonatype where for
all our projects we have clear CLAs that are executed by everyone
contributing code and we own all the IP. An Apache/Eclipse setup, or
InfraDNA doing everything would both be great. The current situation
really wouldn't be acceptable to any lawyer at any reasonably large
organization. I believe the IP is not in a clear state which is a bad
thing for the project. I also don't believe it would be that hard to
clean up. And I will happily contribute legal resources to help clean up
the IP in the way the project wants.

I assume that "hudson/main" is the core only, right? We were not
asking for SCAs for contributions outside the core. Kohsuke thought
this arrangement was best to simplify development and encourage
contributions; I'd have preferred to keep things in two java.net
<http://java.net> projects but the separation seems easy to grok and
went along.

I need to check with others, but we can go through that list and look
for disconnects.

- eduard/o

On 7/20/10 11:02 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
FYI - I just mashed up the list of committers to hudson/main at
http://fisheye.hudson-ci.org/users/Hudson/trunk/hudson/main
(specifically those with at least 1 line of code changed) and the SCA
list at https://sca.dev.java.net/CA_signatories.htm, and, well, even if
you account for typos (i.e., I'm in the SCA list as "ababer"), the
majority of committers don't have SCAs on file, apparently. I'm also not
sure what the status of code from Sun/Oracle employees would be, since
they didn't have SCAs either.

A.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Eduardo Pelegri-Llopart
<[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]>> wrote:

The list of signed SCAs should be kept at sca.dev.java.net
<http://sca.dev.java.net>
<http://sca.dev.java.net>.

I'm no longer involved in Hudson at Oracle, so I do not know if the
recent submissions have been recorded there. I'll ping the Oracle
manager in charge of this; hopefully somebody will report back.

- eduard/o


On 7/20/10 10:21 AM, Andrew Bayer wrote:

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Stephen Connolly
<[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]
<[hidden email]>>> wrote:



On 20 July 2010 05:51, R. Tyler Ballance
<[hidden email] <[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]>
<[hidden email] <[hidden email]>>> wrote:


At one point, those wishing to contribute to Hudson's "core"
were required to
sign contribution agreements which (loosely speaking)
let Sun
relicense/etc the
code contributed to Hudson's core; an open source "god
mode" if
you will.


You seem worried about the "god mode". I am not so
concerned by this.

IANAL, but

1. The SCA that I signed was limited to the
hudson.dev.java.net <http://hudson.dev.java.net>
<http://hudson.dev.java.net>
<http://hudson.dev.java.net> project while owned and managed by

Sun/Oracle.

2. It specifically says that if we develop a derivative
work, then
the SCA does not apply to that derivative work.

3. All that "god mode" allows Sun/Oracle to do is to create
their
own derivative work (we have an MIT license already, so
nothing new
there) and present the derivative work as being Copyright
Oracle and
under a different (e.g. commercial) license. They can do
nothing to
the original Hudson code, it will still be MIT licensed.


FWIW, some concerns have been expressed about the legal state of
the IP,
given that the Hudson project doesn't actually have access to
the signed
SCAs and Oracle's history of...shall we say, extreme
litigiousness. I am
very, very much not a lawyer, so I can't say whether there's any
legitimacy to the concerns, but there's definitely more
ambiguity in the
current situation than I'd like.

A.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]>
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
<[hidden email]>


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

To do two things at once is to do neither.

-—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.



Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
---------------------------------------------------------

Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)



12