Martin,
Thanks for the link. This is one of those strange cases where the
project "could" be considered a part of MyFaces or it could be
considered a new subproject. I think either way, this definitely has to
go before the incubator PMC.
I did talk with Michael Freedman (the JSR-301project lead) yesterday and
it's looking like he's going to be handing the code over to me sometime
next week or early the week after as opposed to this week like I
originally thought. Because the code was developed in-house at Oracle
until the Apache community started expressing interest, he's just trying
to get stuff into a state where it could be reasonably handed off and be
able to be supported and enhanced by the community. Still, it looks
like we have some footwork that needs to be done with incubator or
whatnot but I think it would be valuable to start figuring out where
this donation is going to go so that when we do get the code, we can hit
the ground running. What do you guys think? Is this something we can
figure out before the code donation is made or do we need to have the
code donation first?
Scott
Martin Marinschek wrote:
Here is some further information on "Intellectual Property Clearance".
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
regards,
Martin
On 7/26/07, *Matthias Wessendorf* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> this is exceptionally great news. The question is now how we can
move in the
> code. The old question that arises now is incubator versus code
grant.
even a software grant has be to discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
well.
> The question that we'll need to answer is how the community that
so far has
> developed the code is structured.
>
> Main question: Can and will the code be further developed by
mostly persons
> who are already member of the MyFaces community, or does
community building
> have to occurr?
>
> Both Scott and me will be active in the development, we both are
active in
> the Trinidad/MyFaces community, so this is a plus. I would guess
that also
> Stan will be interested. So, I think that we as a community will
be able to
> handle the code easily.
Scott is already ASF committer, like you and Stan.
Also others here, not committers (yet), have provided feedback
regarding JSF + portlet.
Form that side, all is fine :)
-Matthias
> I would tend to think that in this case, a direct code grant
would be ok,
> what does everyone else think?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 7/25/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > Dennis,
> >
> > I checked with the project lead for JSR-301 and he said
licensing for
> > the TCK is still up in the air. It is his intention to
publish it under
> > the Apache 2.0 license but I believe he is still trying to
work out the
> > logistics with Sun to make sure that Oracle can comply with
the JCP.
> >
> > He said that until the logistics of the TCK are worked out, he
would
> > like to contribute some testing code to the subproject here at
Apache
> > and would ultimately like those unit tests to drive the
TCK. But the
> > TCK is, in large part, a piece of the JCP which gauges
compliance of
> > various implementations so we need to play nicely with them.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> > > One more comment, the unit tests that will hopefully be made
as part
> > > of the Maven build will be developed as part of this project
and I
> > > have hopes they will be a lot more comprehensive then the tests
> > > provided by the TCK. :) That's up to the community to help
with that
> > > however.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> > >> I'll double check, but I think the TCK will be liscenced
using the
> > >> Apache 2.0, it's just that Oracle will maintain the
copyrights. As
> > >> per agreements with the JCP, the TCK can only enforce the
> > >> specification which is developed by the Java Community
EG. I know
> > >> Martin is on the Expert Group representing Apache and so am I
> > >> (representing Trinidad and the new Rich Renderkit we'll be
donating
> > >> soon). So the TCK can be influenced though that process.
> > >>
> > >> IMO, it's very much the same relationship that MyFaces has
with the
> > >> JSF TCK which is developed by Sun, except that because the
code
> > >> developed by the Apache community will be used as the R.I., the
> > >> Apache community has a much better chance to influence both
the TCK
> > >> and the future of the standard Portlet Bridge.
> > >>
> > >> Scott
> > >>
> > >> Dennis Byrne wrote:
> > >>> believe the TCK will be developed in-house at Oracle, but the
> > >>>
> > >>> development of the 301 bridge itself will be done as
part of
> > >>> MyFaces
> > >>> community.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello Scott. Does Oracle have control of the TCK
licensing? If so,
> > >>> what are the chances of having anonymous read access to
the code,
> > >>> and a license that lets us keep this in the continuous
integration
> > >>> loop right next the unit tests. Thanks
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Scott
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Dennis Byrne
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
