- Project tools
- How do I...
|Over 500 more tools...
Re: [Catacomb] [PROPOSAL] Catacomb joining Apache
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
OK, I had some time to think about how to proceed, with mixed
results. Bottom line first: I think that there are quite a few
things that need to be sorted out before submitting a proposal to
Apache. Catacomb, while being good software, has severe lacks from a
number of perspectives, and before having a chance to enter Apache I
think that such problems should be solved here.
Are there other issues besides licensing/copyright related ones?
The first and foremost is licensing, since unfortunately, it's not
as easy as "OK, let's use ASL". Catacomb is in a very strange
situation, being currently "unlicensed", the only snippet stating
that it's Open Source stuff being a phrase on the website.
Catacomb has been distributed using the ASF 1.1 license since it was
first made available publicly, and all but a few* of the Catacomb source
files include it at the top of the file. The core development team
initially chose to use the ASF 1.1 license over other common OS licenses
due to the dependency Catacomb has with the Apache server. In addition,
there is a UCSC copyright notice, which is more of a legal disclaimer
meant to divorce UCSC from any legal liability.
problem can be solved only by the original copyright holder, which I
understand should be UCSC (but correct me if I'm wrong). Also, all
further contributions from non-UCSC people should be chased and
sorted out, with a proper code donation abiding to the chosen language.
Yes, I believe that UCSC would be the original copyright holder. There
are some funny issues surrounding this, however... As far as I know,
work done as part of a class project (the bulk of Catacomb development)
belongs to the student(s) who did the work. On the other hand, work that
is funded by UCSC, whether through stipends, grants or facilities,
technically belongs to the university. Of course, the classic IANAL
disclaimer applies to the above. Jim, can you confirm or deny my
understanding of the above?
The issue of other peoples contributions to the Catacomb codebase is
interesting. We can certainly track down all the various contributors
and ask them if they are comfortable with their work being moved into
the ASF incubator and ultimately the ASF itself. However, I am unclear
about whether this level of effort is actually necessary. Given that the
source code is distributed with the ASF 1.1 license, it is reasonable to
assume that patches were submitted with full knowledge and acceptance of
that license. Again, IANAL...
[...] licensing issues are probably the most important no-no in ASF-land.
Yeah, I've seen several lengthy license related discussions on a couple
ASF projects. Most recently the JBoss / Geronimo debacle, but I
digress... Let it suffice to say that I think most of us recognize the
importance of licensing related issues and would agree that they should
Now, can someone (Jim?) from UCSC - assuming that this is where
Catacomb came from - find out how hard would be having an "official"
statement from the organization about open sourcing this software
with the ASL 2.0 license?
Yes, please? Or, if you're too busy to spend cycles on this, I'd be
willing to once I know who to contact. :-)
Sorry for the length of the above, these are important issues that must
be fully considered. I'm also somewhat sleep deprived right now, as my
pager went off at around 3am after only about 2 hours or so of sleep...
* The following files are currently missing license information:
dbms_mysql.h, dbms_mysql.c, table.sql, init_lock.sql, data.sql,
configure.in, and config7.m4.in. Additionally, lock.c is missing the