On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks,
or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we
are accepting the COMMUNITY.
One company
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
If there is a community
and that community doesn't want Apache to fork the code that they created,
then we will not fork that code at Apache. If the original developers of the
code do not want their license changed,
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks,
or otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we
are accepting the COMMUNITY.
One company is not a community.
As you've otherwise acknowledged, I
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was
in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned,
it never happened.
And Oracle's
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways.
There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't
read them all so am a little lost on whats going on, but
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
The VOTE was based on misleading information. The Incubator PMC should
declare it
void and request a new proposal. The existing Bloodhound podling should be
placed on hold until this is sorted out.
What is the status
On Jan 10, 2012 9:30 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot
anyways.
There have been tons of long emails on this proposal and i haven't
read them all
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already
started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork
plan and are executing on that now, on the bloodhound-dev mailing list
For
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already
started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:20, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has
On 1/10/2012 6:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:11 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
There is no fork in the current plan, so this discussion is moot anyways.
I believe the point was to settle the issue so that we don't have to
deal with this situation again.
Roy
That was the
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening.
I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion
of
On 1/10/2012 2:20 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
I'm actually not seeing much in the way of contradiction in discussion
of the policy.
The letter seems to be: Apache projects don't import and incorporate
code without the owners' consent. License to use is not synonymous
with consent to
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening.
I see no indication of this escalating into a board issue, so I don't
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its
On 1/10/2012 4:04 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Greg both acquiesced in picking another plan while at the same time he
did not retreat from the position that there is no set Foundation
policy here. Roy takes a strong and continuing line that there is one.
So I personally wish that the board
On 1/10/2012 3:50 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
The IPMC is perfectly capable (in its own sometimes messy way) to deal
with this issue. In fact the board has explicitly delegated the
responsibility of acceptance and oversight of new products submitted
or proposed to become part of the Foundation
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 22:59, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
...
This sounds more and more like an example of Fascination of the
Apache brand, as a lever for commercial interest.
I agree with Roy that this is bad taste, and I wish WANdisco simply
makes a commercial derivative, OR
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork.
Untrue. Christian and Remy are, and always
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright
hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com wrote:
I think the Trac community sees this as a zero-sum game: if people are
contributing to Bloodhound, they *aren't* contributing to Trac.
Instead, we should try to convince the Bloodhound people that our
philosophy is
On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent to this
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I don't follow that. Is Edgewall still a formal organization capable
of owning copyright? If not, who owns the copyright? Have Christian
and Remy stopped all work on Trac, or are they just busy with their $jobs?
On Jan 9, 2012 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
And, no, the discussion has not been with the Trac community -- it was
in private with a few individuals; as far as Apache is concerned,
it never happened.
And Oracle's private conversations, and their decisions regarding
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting the COMMUNITY.
One company is not a community.
And it seems to me that if we
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork.
Untrue. Christian and Remy are, and always have been, supportive. They were
the ones to suggest the fork, rather than trying to make the changes in
trunk.
What you have
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
...WANdisco has definite problems in how they approach and work with open
source communities. They discussed this stuff with the Trac principals
privately, rather than with the broader community. But my read is that the
Trac
On Jan 7, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012 4:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
...
The original developers are not ambivalent to this fork.
Untrue. Christian and Remy are, and always have been, supportive.
On Jan 7, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Jan 7, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting the COMMUNITY.
And it seems to me that if we are to say that a COMMUNITZY is not permitted to
participate despite use of code that is
On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:17 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The ASF is not about code; it is about community. If a community forks, or
otherwise emerges around a codebase, we are not accepting the CODE: we are
accepting the COMMUNITY.
And it seems to me that if we are to say that a COMMUNITZY is
On 1/3/2012 11:14 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012 11:48 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
...
A PMC I am on had this exact conversation with board members several
months ago regarding a code base the project is dependent on that is housed
outside the ASF which we were
[ ] Forks are accepted without judgement [Greg] [1]
[ ] [something more nuanced here]
[X ] Hostile forks are never acceptable [Roy] [2]
I don't understand the purpose of a vote here. Roy has stated rather
firmly that [2] is settled foundation policy. So, if someone wants to
reopen that
On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of a vote here. Roy has stated rather
firmly that [2] is settled foundation policy.
Pointer to where that policy was established, or it didn't happen.
It might have been a consensus relative to some specific incident
On 1/3/2012 11:43 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Would some please clarify is this is *truly* a hostile fork?
Wrong thread, see Subject: above. Thx.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
Hey hey,
(Pff. I like replying in-line but this is a hard e-mail to reply to
in-line so I will top post.)
If I understand your policy question: will apache allow an incubating
community to show up and start a project when they are forking another
project?
I'd say, in general, yes, probably, if
It occurs to me that the ASF, in enforcing open-source licensing,
becomes a source of free legal advice to the open-source community,
whether it intends to or not...
1. Contribute a body of code to ASF.
2. Is it legal for us to accept this? Better run it past legal@.
3. Use acceptance of the
Any time a body of code is contributed from another source, it should
go through the standard Apache procedures, including a license grant
(if it's not open-source already). But this is very different from
spinning off chunks of an existing incubator project.
For example, ManifoldCF is currently
On Jan 3, 2012 1:28 PM, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is appropriate application of judgement to specific cases.
Generic policy
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is appropriate application of judgement to specific cases.
Generic
On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[1] I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork,
or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good.
[2] At Apache, all contributions are voluntary. We do not accept code
from copyright owners who
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[1] I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork,
or a corporate spin-out, or a move, or brand new... All Good.
[2] At Apache, all
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 15:13, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On 01/03/2012 07:35 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[1] I don't see it as our place to *judge* communities. If it is a fork,
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 3, 2012 1:28 PM, Kalle Korhonen kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is
On 1/3/2012 12:51 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
So the generic policy is there is no generic policy, and instead there
is appropriate application of
46 matches
Mail list logo
