(1) When the first release of Corinthia is reviewed by the IPMC we need to make certain we have our source and dependencies properly explained. Regardless it may cause debate from a committee of 100.
I see no concerns that this won't be done properly. (2) I think if our features are both pluggable and built in then we will have created a very cool product from our project. There is an Apache project worth looking at - Apache Flex. Work there has been proceeding towards FlexJS and HTML5. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > While Corinthia is in the incubator, all releases, once approved by the > project, must be reviewed and approved by the Incubator PMC. > > For the first release there will be great scrutiny on IP provenance in the > source code. It is then expected that a mechanism to continue having clean > IP provenance will be sustained throughout incubation and into the future > whenever Corinthia becomes a Top-Level Apache Project (TLP). This scrutiny > also includes dealing with the presence of third party software, or > dependence on third-party software, essential to use of a built version of > the software. (There is no problem with tools used to build the software, so > long as they don't impose license conditions on what is built.) > > Part of the reason for incubation is to provide a learning curve for the new > project with respect to how ASF projects operate and the basic principles > and, in some cases, specific policies. > > It is not at all unusual that there will be some deconstruction of natural > inclinations and suppositions when the constraints on being an Apache Project > are encountered and then dealt with. > > - Dennis > > PS: There is not scripture or holy writ anywhere that compels successful > open-source projects to be Apache Projects. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Kelly [mailto:pmke...@apache.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:17 > To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposal editor development framework. > > One other thought on the issue of Qt: I think we need to be careful to > balance the goals of getting to a functioning reference implementation, and > ensuring that we have an app that can be built without depending on any LGPL > libraries. Actually I thought the whole point of LGPL was that you can use it > in applications under any circumstance, and only need to distribute any > changes to the library itself. This is the first instance in which I’ve been > aware that it carries other obligations (which I’m still confused about). > > Right now I think the discussion has turned too far towards the latter > licensing issue. We’re here to build great software (or at least, I am) - > that’s the goal, everything else is in support of that. Yes, we do need to > ensure that anything that we mark as part of the “core” (non-optional) part > of the codebase can be built by depending only on Apache-licensed code or > operating-system libraries. > > But to be honest, I see this issue as a block on development. If we get too > caught up in religiously following rules at the expense of development speed, > we put the project at risk - either by taking to long to eventually get > something done, or potentially alienating new or existing contributors. [ ... > ] > >
