The following bullets need to be validated for mod_aspdotnet: ....-..-.. If applicable, make sure that any associated name does not already exist and check www.nameprotect.com to be sure that the name is not already trademarked for an existing software product.
Status: I have checked nameprotect and other resources, spelt out, "aspdotnet" has no hits against the US/Canadian databases as a mark. There are dozens of references to "aspdotnet" from google. Nonetheless, the module name mod_aspdotnet is not an invention of the ASF, but a descriptive term of what the module actually does, much like mod_ssl or mod_ldap. I see no obstacles either to the cli-dev (should that have been clr-dev?) project name or module name. Other comments or thoughts? ....-..-.. Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. This is complete - since Jim is in receipt of that document, I'd love it if he would commit the change to infrastructure/site/projects/httpd-cli.cwiki. ....-..-.. Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. This should be complete, but second pair of eyes is always nice. ....-..-.. Check that all active committers have a signed CLA on record. This is done already, and needs to be kept current as this project moves from incubation to subproject status (I'm also certain [EMAIL PROTECTED] will keep us honest in that respect.) Has anyone recently joined looking for commit access yet, for the mod_aspdotnet module, documentation, website, or the mod_xxxxxx future Apache.Web. integration effort? ....-..-.. Remind active committers that they are responsible for ensuring that a Corporate CLA is recorded if such is is required to authorize their contributions under their individual CLA. AFAIK, anyone with a CLA on hand either filed this or does not need to. ....-..-.. Check and make sure that for all items included with the distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute. There is nothing distributed that will not be under the Apache license. The user of mod_aspdotnet is expected to have .NET 1.0 or 1.1 installed, and the .msi I've already described in the mod_aspdotnet tree will not bundle a .NET. ....-..-.. Check and make sure that all items depended upon by the project is covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms. This is an interesting question :) Certainly mod_aspdotnet requires .NET to be installed, and presumes the adminstrator sets up the ASP.NETClientFiles helper scripts to be served to the end user. Aside from the implications of the Microsoft Patent for the System.Web.Hosting implementation, it appears they did not include the implementations of System.Web.Host or System.Web.Request (which Apache.Web then superclasses) because the Microsoft .NET team intended for the ASP.NET environment to be pluggable into many different hosts, or containers. These already include several lightweight 'mini-server' implementations, an implementation within the Web Matrix IDE, and even a command-line invoked console container. As far as I am aware, we are no more encumbered by compiling and linking to Microsoft's .NET runtime, than we would be by compiling and linking Apache httpd web server with Visual Studio. I did not find the license files in msdn.microsoft.com or www.asp.net such that we could refer to them, so if anyone can track them down and post the URL for the framework 1.1 redistributable, I would appreciate it. Additional feedback is welcomed. Bill
