On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
The question i would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
don't match?
If you're donating the archiver to the GNU Mailman project, for us to
maintain, release, bundle, and develop, then I think that would be a very high
hurdle to
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Distributed/pointed to by list.org along with mailman and postorius might be
negotiable though :-)
Absolutely. I'm committed to making it as easy as possible for an admin to
integrate third-party FLOSS archivers with mm3.
I don't think
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:56 PM, David Jeske wrote:
If this GPL/S-BSD issue turns out to be a blocker, then I'll just make my
own site and maintain (my version) there because I want to release my code
S-BSD.
Also, there will be *zero* ill-will if you folks want to wrap it up in a
GPL license and
On Apr 03, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Bob Puff wrote:
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right out of the
box. This includes the Archiving functions.
Distros are of course free to make their own
On Apr 03, 2012, at 09:16 PM, David Jeske wrote:
I'd personally like to see a better archiver rolled into an MM2 point
release, as well as upcoming MM3 development. (I understand pipermail URL
compat would be nice in that case).
I'd strongly oppose any change in default archiver for Mailman 2.1.
On Apr 05, 2012, at 05:18 PM, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'd like to see a default install provide list owners with at a minimum
a choice of public, private or no archives and the archives to be
searchable.
See also Jeff's first paragraph in comment #1 here:
On 08-04-12 17:48 , Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
The question i would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
don't match?
If you're donating the archiver to the GNU Mailman project, for us to
maintain, release, bundle, and develop, then I think
On 08-04-12 19:24 , Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David. See, e.g.,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2012-April/021921.html
Well, that's
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David. See, e.g.,
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/2012-April/021921.html
--
Mark Sapiro m...@msapiro.netThe
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Blake Winton bwin...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 08-04-12 19:24 , Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 04/08/2012 04:14 PM, Blake Winton wrote:
Would it work for everyone if David licensed the archiver to Mailman
under the GPLv3+?
It won't work for David.
Well, that's not
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@list.org wrote:
On Apr 02, 2012, at 08:04 PM, David Jeske wrote:
Probably the only way I'd change my mind about that is if RMS personally told
us that we could still treat the non-copyleft donation the same way we treat
all the other code,
On 12-04-03 11:08 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
So David's program can't be *part* of GNU Mailman without special
permission, which I doubt the GNU Project (ie, RMS, AFAIK) will grant
(and would require delicate negotations in extreme good humor on our
part, based on past experience trying to
This thread is slowing down my coding! :)(it's been really helpful
though all, thanks for the many perspectives!)
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Terri Oda te...@zone12.com wrote:
It occurs to me that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that people who
*package* mailman for different
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:56 PM, David Jeske dav...@gmail.com wrote:
...this discussion is all just about whether mailman wants to bundle (or
reference) near-future updates to this stuff. I was hoping that rather than
create my own separate OSS-y website and such for it, I could just hang out
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:04:23PM -0700, David Jeske wrote:
On Apr 2, 2012 3:07 PM, Terri Oda te...@zone12.com wrote:
This agrees with my view of the situation as well. Which leads to the
question, is the above approach interesting/viable for Mailman-team?
(assuming the code does something
I think it would be a mistake to bundle any archiver with mailman3.
Listing the available archiver options and their features and
shortcomings would be a better way to go.
-1
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
their distro, and there is a real
On Apr 3, 2012 8:14 PM, Bob Puff b...@nleaudio.com wrote:
I think it would be a mistake to bundle any archiver with mailman3.
Listing the available archiver options and their features and
shortcomings would be a better way to go.
-1
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using
On Apr 3, 2012 11:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is would you BUNDLE another archiver even if the licenses
don't match?
Where could your archiver fit into that sequence of impressions? I'm not
entirely sure. I think that it probably couldn't be bundled into
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM, David Jeske dav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2012 8:14 PM, Bob Puff b...@nleaudio.com wrote:
I think the majority of MM users will be simply using the RPM that comes with
their distro, and there is a real benefit to stuff working right out of the
box. This
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
From the talk about what it means to be a FSF project at the mailman sprint
at pycon I don't think a non-FSF copyright assigned archiver would be
bundled into mailman (Core).
AFAIK there are no FSF projects, although
On 03/29/2012 02:27 PM, David Jeske wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Stephen J. Turnbullstep...@xemacs.orgwrote:
I would say you should try to retain copyright, and have the Mailman
project distribute it with the S-BSD license under the mere
aggregation clause of the GPL.
This agrees
On Apr 2, 2012 3:07 PM, Terri Oda te...@zone12.com wrote:
This agrees with my view of the situation as well. Which leads to the
question, is the above approach interesting/viable for Mailman-team?
(assuming the code does something awesome that people want)
If the question is just would you
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:00 PM, David Jeske dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I started to talk to one of them about installing CSLA (or MHonArc, or
anything really), and realized I should see if you folks are interested in
a great bundled archiver,
I'm personally interested, but that's not going to
23 matches
Mail list logo
