On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 09:07:40PM -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
... except that the ASF would never actually use this document. Legal
affairs
expertise is a limited resource, and if we don't have skin in the game, I'm
hesitant to suggest that it live there.
I'll challenge that one. The
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 09:07:40PM -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
Find a wiki and start documenting. :)
I've started a page here:
http://wiki.apache.org/general/OpenSourcePolicy
So far, it contains materials from you, Ross, and myself.
The permissions regime material involving supervisors
On 3/29/2011 5:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
In my opinion, it's important that the Policy make only one major distinction:
between open source software and proprietary software.
As a practical matter, advocating for particular technologies seems likely to
alienate people at companies
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:01:51PM -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Keep in mind, that even open source and proprietary software often
intersect. If the document wants to evangelize an 'all open' solution, so
be it,
I don't think it's desirable to advocate for all open, as it would
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:23 -0700, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 02:40:31PM -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
I recommend separating things out into using free software versus
writing free software.
They're intimately tied, aren't they?
One of the great
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:23 -0700, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 02:40:31PM -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
I recommend separating things out into using free software versus
writing free software.
They're intimately tied, aren't they?
Not
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.orgwrote:
This conversation seems to be moving sideways into nonsense. Open Source
and
LAMP have nothing to do with each other. There are a million ways to
consume
open source without touching a LAMP stack (some people even
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 01:01:24AM -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
Presumably this outline described procedures for obtaining clearance from
management to work on open source projects?
Depends how liberal you're talking. A liberal company would be more
along the lines of:
Let us know projects
On 3/22/2011 7:19 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
I guess some might consider a solution like that no worse than any other but
I think
endorsing such a stack goes against a good policy. If you are going to make a
policy, you
should love the results it endorses. That is all I was trying to
Hi all;
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.orgwrote:
On 3/22/2011 7:19 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
I guess some might consider a solution like that no worse than any other
but I think
endorsing such a stack goes against a good policy. If you are going to
make
On 3/22/2011 10:24 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
I try to be pragmatic as well but free software is better and cheaper and so
these worthy
goals and reasons should be reflected in the policies on a topic.
the policies, hmmm. Those would be 'your policies'. Which may or may not
be what Marvin is
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:22:57PM +, Ross Gardler wrote:
This is an interesting question. I was recently asked to help with
exactly this issue and I also struggled.
Perhaps we might consider working up an
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 02:40:31PM -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
I recommend separating things out into using free software versus
writing free software.
They're intimately tied, aren't they?
One of the great freedoms of open source software is the ability to modify it
-- whether that means a
On 17/03/2011 20:44, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
There's a fair amount of information out there on establishing corporate open
source policies, but not much that seems appropriate for the company profile
I'm interested in:
* Web startup.
* Software based around an open source ecosystem.
*
14 matches
Mail list logo
