Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2003 08:28, Stephen McConnell wrote:
My own opinion is that we need a new CVS repository - avalon-playground.
What's the difference between avalon-playground and avalon-sandbox -
simple - things in playground are not destined for Avalon - its simply
an infrastructure to support and enable people who want to do new
things. What is the exit criteria for playground content? Its the
development of the individuals who come to play.
I.e. Avalonia - the center for component developer development.
IIUYC, avalon-playground would be more open to developers who are not full
Avalon comitters, and only access to that repo? And that the entry-level for
participation here would be much lower?
I doubt that will go through the ASF upper ranks. If there are legalities of
copying an LGPL library to ASF infrastructue, I believe the above to be hard
to get through.
The point of the proposal was to promote the idea of an external component
playground that would have much more relaxed requirements. The major drawback
is that you lose ASF protection and oversight. One of the benefits is that
you can allow the use of other projects that otherwise have an incompatible
license.
As long as we mandate that the component interfaces are licensed under the APL
or compatible license, and that the interfaces are encapsulated in a separate
JAR file from the implementations, we can use the components whose
implementations require an LGPL type of license. We just can't redistribute
them.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I think I have a sensible counter-
proposal. More on that later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
