The only issue is the credit which AntHill may/may not require and where it needs to be placed. If it is on an apache web site then we need some sort of official OK. If this is a requirement of the AntHill license then we need the OK on this before we move from evaluation of AntHill to actual use...
-- Rob On 09/03/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/9/07, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. is AntHill offering a license for any of the contributors to run a > continuous build against the apache subversion project? > 2. is there any restriction on the number of continuous build systems thus > set up? > 3. if individual contributors / organisations take wish advantage of such a > license, is the qpid community as a whole happy to credit AntHill in the > manner required. > 4. finally even of the Qpid community is happy to credit AntHill, is Apache > happy to allow Qpid to do so The licence they gave us allows contributors pretty much free reign, so long as it is used to produce OS software only. No restriction on the number of systems. 999 users, 999 build agents. I'm assuming Apache is happy for us to use it, as I say, Geronimo have set the precedent already. Have not made any official enquiries towards Apache yet though. As you point out, the build server and build system are seperate. There is absolutely no need to check the AH config files into the source respository at all. Using it does not force anyone interested in using/building qpid to use AH.
