[jbosstools-dev] FreeMarker plugin deprecation

[Daniel Dekany]

Thursday, March 8, 2018, 4:54:27 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:

> Still seems weird that I have to GIVE you the code when you want to
> TAKE it over and it's freely licensed for exactly this purpose... but anyway...
>
> Do you mean this document [1] ?
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

Yes. But I will ask if we can do it that way.

> If so, just let me know when your colleagues at ASF have decided
> they're OK with taking the contribution, and have created the git
> repo for the pull request. I can then submit the PR and the
> aforementioned document. Should it be signed by me as the
> contributor, or Richard as our legal guy?

If it's going to be the above CLA (a CCLA as they call it), then
according to https://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas: "The CCLA legally
binds the corporation, so it must be signed by a person with authority
to enter into legal contracts on behalf of the corporation."

> Do you need a PDF w/ an Actual Signature,

Yes, paper printed, actually signed, scanned and e-mailed (or sent
with traditional mail).

> or is a text file with text names sufficient? Forgive these dumb
> questions but I've never contributed to Apache before.
>
> Nick
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddekany at freemail.hu> wrote:
> Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 5:46:34 PM, Mickael Istria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse at redhat.com> wrote:
>> just want to raise that we don't need to move to apache - we can make anyone a contributor
>> on the jboss tools freemarker plugin that agreeds to the jboss CLA.
>> This situation is deeply confusing for JBoss Tools maintainers and
>> potential contributors and your proposal wouldn't help: we -as Red
>> Hat employees- ha've been asked to drop maintenance of
>> jbosstools-freemarker for business or strategical reasons, but we
>> keep it under jbosstools (~= Red Hat) organization. This gives the
>> impression to contributors that we're still owning and maintaining
>> this code. If we want to open this repo to new contributors,
>> incoming contributors would expect us to review PRs, maintain builds
>> and all that stuff we're exactly supposed to not do any more while
>> we stop maintaining. Moreover, some contributors may not like
>> contributing to JBoss or Red Hat branded projects because it's not a vendor-neutral ecosystem.
>> Keeping things like it isn't profitable to anyone and we generally
>> need to clarify what we mean by "not maintained" and how to properly
>> "give up" components like this. We're currently in a mid-ground
>> that's blocking all possible progress or decision.
>>
>> The big question in that case is whether we (Red Hat) is ready to
>> make the effort to "give" such almost abandoned code to Eclipse or
>> Apache Foundation (this involves effort to rebrand package and
>> artifacts, make standalone build, move code...)? That's something we
>> need to clarify before moving any further.
>
> I think you can just sign the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor
> License Agreement, make a PR on Github on the ASF repository prepared
> for the purpose, and the Apache FreeMarker committers will do the rest
> (replacing license headers, renaming packages, getting rid of improper
> dependencies, etc.). Now that's not an official statement from ASF,
> but I can ask ASF legal if needed.
>
>> If the answer is that Red Hat isn't willing to make that migration
>> effort but wouldn't mind anyone else doing it and would approve it
>> legally, let's just write it down very clearly in the README and
>> remove everything else that's not relevant any more. And we can make
>> a statement to Apache or Eclipse
>
> (Apache, surely not Eclipse in this concrete case. FreeMarker is owned
> by Apache.)
>
>> that we approve someone else moving this code.
>> If the answer is that Red Hat can support with manpower migration
>> of this code to someplace else, then it needs to be made more
>> official before people can work on this instead of other stuff. But
>> if we do that, it also means we need to make clear that we're moving
>> the code to better abandon it and let other owns it immediately, as
>> there is no more reason to maintain it at Apache/Eclipse than in jbosstools-freemarker repo.
>>
>> @Max: I really believe we need a hierarchical decision here, it's
>> not a 5 minutes task, and leaving it on GitHub like this can be
>> perceived as technical debt because we still get users reaching us with questions.
>
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany