The more barriers we create to using msub, the more institutions will simply host their own vendor branches, so the *trends* in what institutions need to customize remain hidden from the community. That's why I believe we should encourage use of ECL2, but mandate only the limitations placed upon us by our svn host (open source with an OSI approved license).
Josh On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Christopher Brooks <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > > b) contain code that is distributed under an OSI approved license [6], > > prefereably ECL 2.0. > > If we are going to require a license I prefer it to be required that we > use ECL 2.0. So there are no questions in the future or muddy wading > through svn logs. And I prefer that everyone with access have a CLA > assigned. Does this seem unreasonable? > > Chris > -- > Christopher Brooks, BSc, MSc > ARIES Laboratory, University of Saskatchewan > > Web: http://www.cs.usask.ca/~cab938 > Phone: 1.306.966.1442 > Mail: Advanced Research in Intelligent Educational Systems Laboratory > Department of Computer Science > University of Saskatchewan > 176 Thorvaldson Building > 110 Science Place > Saskatoon, SK > S7N 5C9 >
_______________________________________________ Matterhorn-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users
