I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache compatible. LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected]> wrote: > fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl > (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). > Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene > http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/ >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200 >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> I'll work on that >> >> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code >> porting than an automated tool to do that >> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I >> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we >> > asked. >> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net ( >> > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538) >> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft >> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for >> > > that? >> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo, >> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would >> > > get my votes >> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200 >> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project >> > > > From: [email protected] >> > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > >> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET >> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a >> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of >> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do >> > a >> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an >> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?) >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > All, >> > > > > >> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting >> > > directly >> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork >> > > Lucene.Net, >> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still >> > get >> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I >> > generally >> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists. >> > > > > >> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant >> > > offer >> > > > > for development help. See below: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Dear Lucere team, >> > > > > >> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and >> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have >> > > project in >> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly >> > > on >> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), >> > > but >> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common >> > > approach >> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and >> > > so >> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think >> > > that we >> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project >> > like >> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very >> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to >> > > build >> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this >> > > course. >> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design >> > everything >> > > in >> > > > > best way. >> > > > > >> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing >> > > some >> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly >> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in >> > > designing >> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can >> > build >> > > in >> > > > > that way. >> > > > > >> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted >> > to >> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response. >> > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik >> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication >> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > --- >> > > > > >> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and >> > > see if >> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have >> > > 12 >> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they >> > > do, and >> > > > > how will we coordinate their work? >> > > > > >> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't >> > > really >> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design". >> > > > > >> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of >> > the >> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some >> > > new >> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline >> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group >> > > to do >> > > > > that work? >> > > > > >> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an >> > > automated >> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work >> > to >> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could >> > focus >> > > on >> > > > > that? >> > > > > >> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application >> > > that >> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to >> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET >> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)? >> > > > > >> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more >> > > maintainable >> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)... >> > > > > >> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Troy >> > > > > >> > > >> > >
