Hi Glen, regarding the legal issue of doc, sandbox and www, maybe just changing the footer to something similar to:
Unless otherwise noted, contributions to this wiki are licensed to the Apache Software Foundation as contributions under the Apache License, version 2.0. could be enough (cfr [#1], thread beginning in [#2]). Let's see legal's advice (especially for www). br, juan pablo [#1]: http://s.apache.org/1pR [#2]: http://s.apache.org/Asl On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good, and thank you. I really want to return to coding right now > (in particular, that Maven pom file), but unfortunately have work > constraints ATM hopefully I can fix soon. Moving doc and sandbox to Apache > would be fantastic IMO, especially more so if the corresponding sites on > jspwiki.org can be shut down as a result--but we don't have any control > over jspwiki.org so we cannot be faulted over its contents (Janne has two > hats--Apache JSPWiki team member and that of jspwiki.org owner, but I'm > just referring to the first hat that all of us have.) My main concern > before doing so is, what do we need to do so that all the content on the > Wiki is immediately Apache-licensed, and that whatever anybody places there > automatically becomes Apache-licensed as well? The Confluence Wikis at > cxf.apache.org and camel.apache.org are instantly Apache-licensed--is > there some blurb on the Confluence Wikis we need to put on the JSPWikis to > ensure that? > > Glen > > > > On 02/10/2013 02:53 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ok, retaking the original thread, I'm filling/updating relevant JIRAs now. >> Regarding Java 6 and dropping TranslatorReader I'll asume lazy consensus >> (=nobody has disagreed) and marking them for 2.9.1. I'll tackle them in a >> few days though, to give space to anyone not agreeing on targetting this >> for 2.9.1 release. >> >> As for the wikis location, how about moving doc and sandbox to apache >> infra? so we can request the VM, begin setting up the wikis etc. I'll also >> ping legal for the www.jspwiki.org issue >> >> >> br, >> juan pablo >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What I'm asking you to do could take as little as 15 minutes. Outside of >>> a sentence referring everyone to Apache JSPWiki, you're just *removing* >>> links, converting the site to a read-only legacy project page in the >>> process. If you wish to grant me write access temporarily to >>> jspwiki.org, >>> I'll happily get this done. >>> >>> The more you shrink this read-only site, the less there is to maintain >>> and >>> hence the less work you need to do for it. Continuing to maintain the >>> site >>> in a bloated state (do we really need links to dmoz and yahoo?) probably >>> is >>> what's causing you to want to run away from it. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >>> >>> I will gladly send a tarball of the current wiki contents and transfer >>>> the domain to anyone who wants to pick up the site maintenance. >>>> >>>> /Janne >>>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 15:10 , Glen Mazza <glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki" ? Rest assured, >>>> >>>>> there is no greater service you can perform right now than getting rid >>>>> of >>>>> yesterday's lard from jspwiki.org so we don't need to look >>>>> at/discuss/ooh and aah it and can more clearly grasp what we need to >>>>> move >>>>> over. Especially since you are most knowledgable about what is no >>>>> longer >>>>> important. The first action on "How do we move 500K of text over?" is >>>>> "How >>>>> do we make it 200K of text?" It's harder to focus on the say 6 issues >>>>> that >>>>> matter if they must always be interspersed with 15 items nobody cares >>>>> about. >>>>> >>>>> I think there are two more changes needed for that site: >>>>> >>>>> 1.) The top of jspwiki.org main should stress that the project has now >>>>> moved to Apache and that this is just a legacy site for older versions >>>>> of >>>>> JSPWiki.org that will be periodically reduced as the information >>>>> becomes >>>>> obsolete or moves to regular Apache sites. jspwiki.org needs to stop >>>>> acting like it's the main website for JSPWiki. >>>>> >>>>> 2.) Accordingly with #1 above, remove the following left-side menu >>>>> items >>>>> (and their associated pages) that are either obsolete or incorrectly >>>>> give >>>>> the appearance of jspwiki.org being a live site--links in the latter >>>>> category have already been taken over by the Apache JSPWiki site: >>>>> News, >>>>> Recent Changes, User Preferences, About, IRC Channel, Mailing List, >>>>> Weblog, >>>>> Getting Involved, JSP Wiki Testers, Open bugs, Report new bug, New >>>>> Ideas?, >>>>> What's up?, SandBox, Dmoz, Google, Yahoo. If there's any information >>>>> on >>>>> those pages that you would like to see moved first to the Apache site >>>>> (I >>>>> don't see any myself), we can keep those particular links until we >>>>> move the >>>>> data over. But for links for which you're in agreement with me are >>>>> obsolete, it would be great to delete them now so they don't continue >>>>> to >>>>> serve as distractions. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Glen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 02/02/2013 02:53 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to >>>>>> contribute to JSPWiki ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Janne >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza<glen.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>> 20-60% of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> see where we are after that. At any rate,http://www.jspwiki.org/, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> you describe it, is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. >>>>>>> Maybe >>>>>>> we should just shut it down. If we create our own Wiki (with >>>>>>> everything >>>>>>> henceforth Apache licensed), within a few to several months it will >>>>>>> probably repopulate with the most useful material that was on the >>>>>>> old site >>>>>>> anyway. I would suspect pure facts fromwww.jspwiki.org *can* be >>>>>>> transferred to the new site as facts aren't copyrightable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can the >>>>>>> Commons-licensedhttp://doc.**j**spwiki.org/2.4/<http://jspwiki.org/2.4/> >>>>>>> <http://doc.**jspwiki.org/2.4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/>> be >>>>>>> donated to Apache or does it have the same copyright problem ashttp:// >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.jspwiki.org/ ? It would be nice if we could movehttp:// >>>>>>> doc.jspwiki.org/2.**4/ <http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/> to the Apache >>>>>>> >>>>>>> site. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache >>>>>>> would use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the >>>>>>> domain." Not >>>>>>> necessarily, Apache doesn't >>>>>>> ownwww.chemistry.com,www.**tom**cat.com<http://tomcat.com> >>>>>>> <http://www.tomcat.com> >>>>>>> ,www.pig.com,www.**chemistry.**org <http://chemistry.org> < >>>>>>> http://www.chemistry.org>, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.camel.com, and probably many others. I think the main thing >>>>>>> though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache product. With >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might just be able >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> release the domain instead of giving it to Apache. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would >>>>>>>> use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I >>>>>>>> can't >>>>>>>> recall whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> whether it was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> that it's better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if >>>>>>>> it's nothing but a redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or >>>>>>>> wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed >>>>>>>> copyrights), so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> server under some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the >>>>>>>> use of >>>>>>>> old.jspwiki.org ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal >>>>>>>> reasons. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Janne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza<glen.ma...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering >>>>>>>> "hatching" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> out of incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the >>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>> site and our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key >>>>>>>>> due to >>>>>>>>> Finnish legal reasons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a >>>>>>>>> third-party site we have no control over it (the fact that it's >>>>>>>>> owned by a >>>>>>>>> JSPWiki committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> Apache JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> have our system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the >>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>> site, even if it's duplicated by third party sites like >>>>>>>>> jspwiki.org. >>>>>>>>> I would like to get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we >>>>>>>>> are *sooo* >>>>>>>>> much faster than Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other >>>>>>>>> Apache >>>>>>>>> projects to adopt us) but if they won't do that, and our only >>>>>>>>> options are >>>>>>>>> (1) hosting our documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) >>>>>>>>> hosting our >>>>>>>>> documentation on Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however >>>>>>>>> unpleasant, >>>>>>>>> should be evaluated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Glen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is >>>>>>>>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next >>>>>>>>>> April, so >>>>>>>>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @mentors, WDYT? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> br, >>>>>>>>>> juan pablo >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske< >>>>>>>>>> harry.met...@gmail.com>****wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we >>>>>>>>>>> can't stay in >>>>>>>>>>> the incubator forever... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> kind regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez < >>>>>>>>>>> juanpablo.san...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we >>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only >>>>>>>>>>>> ~15 fixed >>>>>>>>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but >>>>>>>>>>>> also: >>>>>>>>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being >>>>>>>>>>>> outdated >>>>>>>>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer) >>>>>>>>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site >>>>>>>>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651) >>>>>>>>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but >>>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, >>>>>>>>>>>> is it >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> safe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be >>>>>>>>>>>> included >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 are done" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> br, >>>>>>>>>>>> juan pablo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >