Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ?? http://www.apache.org/licenses/ http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Policy (Was: Playboy mirror logo?)
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James Mitchell wrote: I am begging you!! DO NOT put their logo or link on our (yes, OUR) web site. You can't even imagine what the media will do with this if you do. God help us all. You are exagerating to the extreme. Go to google and count how many media organizations themselves link to www.playboy.com (as opposed to the corporate site which we are linking to). You'll see cnet, wired, prnewswire, dmoz, etc. If you look at www.playboyenterprises.com, the site we link to, you'll find every major stock-listing site on the web links to them. So I guess the media will have some work to do before the catch up to bothering us. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Playboy mirror logo?
Please stop copying board on every message. On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James Mitchell wrote: How do you propose we do that? How do you define large segment of our users? My email has nothing to do with your complaint. I am talking purely about the technical issue of people being unable to download the software from mirrors.playboy.com. I am not talking about the logo/link to playboyenterprises.com. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Subversion 1.0
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Brian. W. Fitzpatrick wrote: Beyond that, I'm suspecting that a lot of the TODOs are going to be related to the social issues of getting folks to start switching over. And a few security issues. This was discussed a while back on infrastructure, but I don't remember all the details. For example, we currently don't have a good way of managing the users and passwords for SVN/DAV access. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New license applied to docs
I think someone is working on an implimentation guide for the new license. Could you please include and answer to this question: Now that the new license can be explicitly applied to documentation, should we include the Copyright [] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License)... text in a comment in ALL documentation files? Where we have source (xml) and generated html files, do we treat the html as an object file and exclude the notice, or should we have it there too? Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newsletter - to be or not to be?
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Rob Oxspring wrote: Right then, I don't really want to start another round of endless discussions so I'll try to keep this short and to the point. Do people want the newsletter to continue? If so then I'm happy to edit the Oct/Nov issue with no promises to tackle subsequent issues - aiming to publish in a week or so. As much as voting with +1s would be appreciated, voting with content would be better as would someone setting up the dedicated newsletter@ mailing list. To vote with content just use the wiki: http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ApacheNewsletterDrafts/Issue3 +1. Go for it. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Press PR (was Re: The board is not responsible!)
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: 1. website (www.apache.org/ site module) maintenance and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites. I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure committee. We used to have a separate list for doing the 'site' module (site-dev@), but people found it too cumbersome and it was shut down and all discussion was moved back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, we've tried having 'site' split off and that failed. And, I also believe that each PMC needs to be responsible for their own site. The traffic volume on the site list was almost zero. I asked to have it removed because I didn't feel there was adequate oversite. More people pay attention on infrastructure. (Perhaps there were a whole bunch of subscribers who just never said anything; I don't know.) Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Nope. I have to resign. Well, thanks for your contribution Tetsuya. I think it is a worthwhile project, and I hope you reconsider or someone picks it up. I do believe that there have been some people getting a little too picky about policies. In general in the Apache world, and especially in the case of the documentation, he who does the work should get to make the decisions. Suggesting that the newsletter be distributed in a particular format is perfectly acceptable. Insisting on it goes too far, unless there is a serious infrastructure concern. (Actually, I do agree that it would be better to simply send the link by email. But if Tetsuya thinks it is important to send the whole thing, I see no problem in letting him make that decision.) Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: long ago, when the original httpd announce@apache.org got repurposed into a general announcement list, did we say anything about what subscribers could expect? do we say anything about it now on the page where people learn about the lists? are we meeting the expectations we set thereby, if we *do* set any? news and announcements about the foundation and its projects. Announcements of major software releases, new projects, and other important news are included. What I really wanted originally was to use the archives of this list to create an apache-news webpage that would list all the important events of the foundation. I figured that few people would really want to subscribe, but many people might want to browse the history to see what apache was up to. Of course, as has been mentioned the last time this discussion came up, very few projects ever posted to the list, and I gave up nagging people about it long ago. tetsuya has a lot of energy, and i think we are seeing the common decay into inertia and conservatism common to groups as they grow and age. imho, we should work against this tendency, and seek to empower people (or at least help them find appropriate ways to use all that energy) rather than stifle them with policies and bureaucracy. Nicely said. A community is (at least) a two way street. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachecon: The Guru Is In
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Rich Bowen wrote: mailing lists. I don't get the sense that he does this in order that the world will recognize him and adulate him as a hero. (Joshua, please correct me if I'm wrong ;-) Personally, I'm just in it for the money. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: establish a trust relationship (Re: missing signatures)
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Ahhh. Now, there are no *ASF members* in Japan (Maybe, this goes for other Asian countries), so the things can be easily inconsistent. # The only *Japanese-native* fellow (and ASF member) is now in the USA, # I've heard. In such a situation, we can not build establish a trust relationship using telephone or meeting in private (in japan) with ASF members. As a result, the chain of trust can not be established and as a matter of course, people in apache.org would never know who is tetsuya forever. :-) Also, as a matter of course, high-leveled trust with committers and members would not be able to be established forever. A chain of trust can have more than one link. Assuming there is someone in Japan who has once been to a country with an ASF member, geography need not be a barrier. Not that I want to defend PGP. I think it is overkill for most situations. But it is a good option to provide for those who need it. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apachecon US 2003 advertising
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ceki Gülcü wrote: Let me begin by saying that I am not on the AC 2003 committee. However, I think that the organizers would agree that advertising AC US 2003 will contribute to its success. Thus, I urge all ASF members as well committers to add a prominent icon to their project pages as soon as possible. Today is a good day. I'll also note that I would consider the conference announcement completely on-topic for all user and announcement mailing lists. I've already forwarded it to announce@apache.org, announce@httpd.apache.org, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Newsletter.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:58:05 -0400, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Ah! It sounds as if other people aren't aware of the background and original intent. From what you are saying, announce@apache.org should be subscribed to announce@tlp.apache.org. That way announcements would automatically funnel to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all projects have an announce@, but that can be addressed. Probably a good idea, too. I suppose. But I sort of expected the individual projects to filter a litle and not send every beta release, etc, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, I never really clarified this, which might have been part of the problem. I just hoped people would figure out by example. Joshua. -- Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newsletter.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:48:43 +0900, Tetsuya Kitahata [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm vaguely ambivalent, but I really think that we should keep announce for announcements, and have something else for sitewide of interest stuff. I am still not sure the difference between announce@httpd.apache.org and announce@apache.org When I originally proposed the announce@apache.org list, the purpose was this: Each project would send their announcements to their own list (eg. announce@httpd.apache.org) AND send a copy to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That way people could choose whether they wanted announcements only from particular projects or from the foundation as a whole. In other words, announce@apache.org was meant to be a moderate to high traffic list with lots of announcements. Unfortunately, only a very few projects have ever sent anything to announce@apache.org, and I gave up nagging after a while. Joshua. -- Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newsletter.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I *still* don't think that announce@ is an appropriate list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] would seem to me to be the most appropriate address, and if people agree I will set up the list ASAP. ... This fact means that announce@apache.org [1] is for the HTTP Server user (mainly): announcements@jakarta.apache.org [2] is for the jakarta/xml user. , I guessed. No. announce@apache.org is for everyone (announce@httpd.apache.org is for httpd). It just so happens that nobody ever sends anything to announce@apache.org other than the HTTP project. Why? Who knows. Personally, I think the announce@apache.org list is the perfect place for the newsletter. People subscribe there because they want news about events in the foundation and its projects. This is what the newsletter provides. Overall, I liked the newsletter. Sure, there are lots of things that could be improved, but in Apache-land, the people who do the work get to make most of the decisions. A couple suggestions: - Perhaps a monthly newsletter is asking a little too much. Many projects don't have much going on in a month. Quarterly might get more results. - I'd tone down the nagging of projects that don't contribute. Just point at their website and let it be. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was: primary distribution location)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Conor MacNeill wrote: Brian Behlendorf wrote: +1. I see nothing wrong with the plan. Hopefully Ant can be made smart enough to pull the jars down from mirrors, too. Patches always welcome, Brian :-) The mirror CGI script should be able to handle this fairly easily. It could be adapted, for example, to send an HTTP redirect to an appropriate mirror when a request for http://www.apache.org/dyn/go.cgi/java-respistory/dist/file.jar is received. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Please explain why you find this pattern 'repugnant' on a mail list, but you don't on a CVS repository. Since I promised I had finished arguing this, I replied privately. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Ben Hyde said: Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives. From what I've been able to glean from people's selective memory and mail quotes, the lack of archives is simply an oversight. What that tells me is that there was never an intention to discuss anything private on this list. Rather, the purpose of closing this list seems to have been intended to keep out unwanted opinion. I still find this repugnant. I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the pain of my opinions: 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed. The Apache community consists of more than just committers. What about the thousands of people who have made substantial contributions to Apache by submitting important patches, filing detailed bug reports, answering questions on users lists, etc? You can guarantee that many of these people have contributed more to Apache than many committers. 2. Excluding outside opinions hurts us all. It limits our perspective, it inhibits the recruitment of new participants, and it makes us seem like a bunch of stuck-up cool kids who just want to keep to ourselves. And no, allowing invited guests does not eliminate either problem. I'm not sure this is the type of community that I want to participate in. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@, members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to think of any issue that we would want to discuss on community that would need to be private only to committers. Joshua.
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote: community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that list is not an option. The fact that it is the only ASF-wide list for discussion seems to be an argument for opening it, not closing it. Anyway, there are arguments for and against, a bunch of them are in the reorg@ archives. In the community@ archives you can find the vote on whether this list should be open or closed. Yah. Right. And where would I find those archives? One good reason for opening a list is it allows us to have public archives. Sorry for rehashing an old issue, but I just can't imagine a topic I would want to discuss on here that I wouldn't want to be public. Apache is an open organization. All discussion should be open unless there is a very specific reason otherwise. And the only reasons I can think of are security, legal, and making decisions on trust (which I always put in quotes). None of that should be happening here. If I were to write a set of Apache principles, Open discussion and debate would certainly be one of them. We aren't following that here. Joshua.
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions about wiki
[This actually belongs to the Open Community thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh well.] On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here; and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in discussions within a community; without being yet part of that community. Just because our software is free (as in free beer) does not mean that the process behind it needs to be free (as in speech) and open to all. I'm not sure where to start on this. 1. How do you define our community? As I said, I define it to include everyone here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html. It certainly extends beyond those with commit priveleges. 2. Apache software is free as is speach and free as in beer. I'm not sure what your last paragraph is trying to say in that regard. 3. You are correct, that does not necessarily imply an open development process. But an open development process has always been an important part of the Apache culture for as long as I've been here. It is how we attract new participants; it is how we stay connected to users; it is part of the mission of keeping the Internet open. 4. Nobody is saying hold an Internet-wide vote for the board of directors. Another important part of Apache culture is the meritocracy. But that does not conflict with openness, and, in fact, I think the two are very complementary. And what does the open process hurt? The only argument that I've seen so far is signal-noise ratio. This is always a problem on any mailing list, and we've managed it very successfully on new-httpd/[EMAIL PROTECTED] by having a tightly focused scope and enforcing it. (Yes, there have been some rare exceptions, which I will not name; but overall the list is very open and works very well.) I don't see why this would be any more difficult on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joshua.
