On 6/24/07, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> This is a proposal to develop a Java-based interface response
> capture/playback tool.
Interesting proposal. Seems useful.
> Documentation
> ---------------------
> Documentation is available on request. See below.
>
> Initial source
> -----------------
> Until the project has been accepted, code grant executed and ASL
> applied, we do not want to make the sources publicly available. This
> is in part because the sources currently include license headers
> inconsistent with public distribution. Interested parties may
> individually contact the proposal Champion below to work out the
> logistics of access to the source code during proposal review.
I don't think we've done it this way before. I can understand not
wanting to make source openly available, but I don't like that "to
work out logistics of access" happens individually, and the "on
request" makes me a bit itchy, too.
Its not really a matter of not wanting to, just the current license
headers make posting it publicly dicey and there is also the issue of
where to put it. I am assuming that until the grant is executed
~psteitz is not OK.
I think if you do things this way you should at least implement a
clear, open, privacy-respecting, documented and non-discriminating
logistics thingie (along the lines of "tarball is at https://<foo>/,
contact me for username/password. We won't use your contact details
in any way except to provide you the username/password.").
Agreed. There is no intention to discriminate or limit in any way.
What have others done to workaround the bootstrapping problem for code
that is currently internally licensed / restricted distribution before
the proposal is accepted and a grant can be executed?
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
