Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
While I agree that this list should be opened up, I don't think this is the right time. While you were away, this issue was opened up again, and it seemed apparent that few opinions have changed since this issue was voted upon. I suggest tabling the issue for at least a few months, while working on some convincing arguments for allowing a wider audience. If we talk about it now, I'm pretty sure people will feel that it's been done to death and be fairly intransigent. - Morgan --- Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to propose that after seeing the way that this list functions up until now, that it the issue be reconsidered and that it be re-opened to the public. Main considerations: * there is already a private list *committers* which important issues like gee the server was attacked, please don't leave publically executable/writable files in your home director expecially you, you and you * The quality of the conversation will increase * The dumb user who stumbles in factor is pretty low. Since [EMAIL PROTECTED] was moved to the bottom of the mail2.html page under everything else, the moron flamewars have settled. Now all the flamewars are started and run by primarily committers. * promotes community and discourages the perception that we're arrogant snobs Minor considerations: * I will rejoin and stop whining about it. -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
--On Wednesday, February 5, 2003 4:08 PM -0800 Morgan Delagrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we talk about it now, I'm pretty sure people will feel that it's been done to death and be fairly intransigent. +1. =) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
If we talk about it now, I'm pretty sure people will feel that it's been done to death and be fairly intransigent. Very well put - even if a little down in tone... +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
the issue be reconsidered and that it be re-opened to the public. Obvious question: what has changed since you proposed that community@apache.org be open back in October (http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]ms gNo=60)? I don't believe that you want your proposal to be viewed as coming from the ask, re-ask, and ask again until you get the answer you want school of whining, so you should be prepare to explain why the previous decision should be reconsidered, and why the reasons that you should accept as being valid then, whether you agreed with them or not, no longer apply. Perhaps if you want an open list, this one or otherwise, you should see what can be done to address the valid objections that were raised before. For example, I understand that at the moment, infrastructure policy discussions are supposed to be held on this list instead of the infrastructure list, until there is a consensus on the policy. The infrastructure list is supposed to to be reserved for operations. I suggested an infrastructure-policy list which Dw appears to favor, although I'm not aware of any action to implement. One argument in your favor is that the archives for this list are now visible to the public. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licensing issues and jars in Avalon
Sam Ruby wrote: Leo Simons wrote: recent board decree (saw it first on the infrastructure list) (paraphrasing): the ASF must not distribute software packages (in any form) licensed under LGPL, GPL or Sun Binary Code License in any way. Sun's Binary Code license permits bundling as part of your Programs. The short form of this: you can include such things in tars and zips for your release, but for individually download. In other words, users need not feel the pain, but developers do. First, I understand it as *not* for individually download, just bundled in a single archive. Second, in jetspeed, David removed activation.jar some time ago (I think because of those issues). But I have reviewed our repo just now, and we still have mail.jar, which, I think, we should remove also. (Sun Binary Code License). If you confirm, I will take care that it is removed from the repository (being careful to make sure we don't break build procedures, updating docs, etc.) Regards, Santiago - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to place Agora?
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: Ben Hyde wrote: So one possible awnser to the question is: check it into committers someplace and see if you can get a community to begin to emerge. The privacy issues can be used as cover for not going more public at this stage :-). what about using the /community CVS module instead and move Krell into that as well? I prefer never to create any files in the root directory. In any-case we already have the committers repos, and if we decide to create another one then we really ought to have a discussion about which PMC is responsible for cleaning up any farts it leaves in the air. If we stay in the privacy of the committers repository we can avoid all that and get back to the fun of emerging somethings. There isn't a community module is there? - That's a sentence that I certainly enjoyed writing. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate [William of Ockham] I think unity is a mistake If I were the Establishment and had the big loaded guns of the various oppressive institutions I would much prefer to see one lion come through the door than 500 mice. - Florynce R. Kennedy and in a wonderful example of google performing in the role of smart ass: Did you mean: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine _necessitate_ :-) They must be too proud that they can do spelling correction on latin, ekk. They scare me. - ben - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
--- David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we talk about it now, I'm pretty sure people will feel that it's been done to death and be fairly intransigent. Very well put - even if a little down in tone... Only when it's put on a line all by its lonesome, I think. :) Anyway, I'm not picking on one side or the other; I think both camps will be stubborn at this point. I'd like to open up the list, but even I am getting tired of talking about it. - Morgan = Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
* On 2003-02-05 at 18:55,
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say:
I would like to propose that after seeing the way that this list
functions up until now, that it the issue be reconsidered and that
it be re-opened to the public.
as has been poiinted out by others, i don't think this is a
particularly good time to raise the issue. not only do i think the
same results will obtain, but i think even having it on the table is
going to piss some people off who are eminently tired of the topic. i
suggest at least waiting until mid april. people have already
established their opinions and positions on the matter.
*however*.. if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a
*new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that
is a different matter. not only would it seem to satisfy both camps,
but i suspect the discussion energy for it would not be as stale.
Main considerations:
* there is already a private list *committers* which important issues
like gee the server was attacked, please don't leave publically
executable/writable files in your home director expecially you, you
and you
{sigh} if you're going to talk about opening community@, please *drop*
this bogus comparison. community@ is opt-in -- which means that only
those people who are interested get deluged with the periodic denial
of service. committers@ is *mandatory*: if you're an apache
committer, you *cannot* escape being on the committers list. ergo, it
is not for discussions.
* The quality of the conversation will increase
non sequitur.. :-)
Minor considerations:
* I will rejoin and stop whining about it.
won't you consider being nice and doing that anyway? or is this the
only price you'll accept? grin size=huge/ laugh/
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
Millennium hand and shrimp!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licensing issues and jars in Avalon
Santiago Gala wrote: Second, in jetspeed, David removed activation.jar some time ago (I think because of those issues). But I have reviewed our repo just now, and we still have mail.jar, which, I think, we should remove also. (Sun Binary Code License). If you confirm, I will take care that it is removed from the repository (being careful to make sure we don't break build procedures, updating docs, etc.) Confirmed. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: * On 2003-02-05 at 18:55, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say: (...) Minor considerations: * I will rejoin and stop whining about it. won't you consider being nice and doing that anyway? or is this the only price you'll accept? grin size=huge/ laugh/ Would you join if I publicly state (and my apache.org address can be put in the list policy with this statement) that: I will act as a gateway for non subscribed people wishing to contribute, forwarding mails received from such people to the list. This will be done with no restriction, except: - I will filter obvious spam and hate mail with a reject notice (except where spamassassin gets the email first) ;-) - I will direct people to different lists, if I think there is where it should go. If they insist, I will post here. - A certain lag should be expected. So, people can read mail from the archives, and post through me. The list is no longer closed ;-) Regards, Santiago (in the interest of free speech, and to feel Andy bugging back here) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
OK, Java-specific question. It seems likely that altering or inlining LGPL code pollutes the Apache license. Are you of the opinion that IMPORTING but not altering or distributing LGPL classes pollutes the Apache licecnse? And if so, can that be stated on the Wiki page? If LGPL code cannot be imported, it's pretty much useless in any capacity for Java projects. - Morgan --- Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] i'm not even going to touch the infection issue at this point; it always makes my cephalic nodule hurt horribly. let's just say that we can't do anything that will trigger an infection of the asf's assets -- or those of someone using asf packages. if a licence permits *linking* against a library, there's no prohibition on our packages requiring the library in order to run properly. if a licence allows us to include the library, as a general rule we can package it with our stuff. if by linking with it or including it in our distributions we trigger a clause in its licence that either overrides the asf licence on our stuff, or forces the user to comply with rules more restrictive than the asf licence.. then we mustn't do that. [snip] = Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
One of the Three Dangers of the Fire Swamp suggested: if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a *new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that is a different matter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
Morgan Delagrange wrote: OK, Java-specific question. It seems likely that altering or inlining LGPL code pollutes the Apache license. Are you of the opinion that IMPORTING but not altering or distributing LGPL classes pollutes the Apache licecnse? And if so, can that be stated on the Wiki page? If LGPL code cannot be imported, it's pretty much useless in any capacity for Java projects. Refer to Roy's messages of yesterday. Importing is enough to disallow the code from use within ASF code. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=1419 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=1429 Conor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Site scan results
yes please! It'd be cool if something like this could run every week or so, with summaries sent to the appropriate mailing list. I'll run it weekly, but I am *not* subscribing to every mailing list. :-) I'll post the files to my account, and a notice here. Not sure why it failed to generate the results for some of the sites. Next time I'll set it to emit both HTML and plain text, in case it is the HTML generation phase that is getting fubared. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
Ken, can we get this on the Wiki page to protect feeble-minded folks like me? http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing I had just finished doing that. I hope that I got them right. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Morgan Delagrange wrote: OK, Java-specific question. It seems likely that altering or inlining LGPL code pollutes the Apache license. Are you of the opinion that IMPORTING but not altering or distributing LGPL classes pollutes the Apache licecnse? And if so, can that be stated on the Wiki page? If LGPL code cannot be imported, it's pretty much useless in any capacity for Java projects. Refer to Roy's messages of yesterday. Importing is enough to disallow the code from use within ASF code. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=1419 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=1429 As I understand it, class loading the code via configuration files (e.g. _not_ referencing the (L)GPL'd code in our .java sources at all) would be okay. -- Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
Morgan Delagrange [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dang, I wish that archive was searchable. [wink, wink] Pier, the unix permissions on the Lucene index directory for community@apache.org don't allow writes by the unix user apache which Catalina is running as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:dlr$ ls -lad /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community drwxr-sr-x 2 root apache 1536 Jan 30 12:10 /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community/ nagoya gave me the finger when I tried to correct them: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:dlr$ chmod -R g+w /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community chmod: WARNING: can't change /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community Calvary? -- Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Re: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
--On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 21:25:47 -0800 Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com wrote: can't change /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community Man, I hope our search engine doesn't index www.apche.org. I actually encountered this site at ApacheCon while Brian and David were running etherpeg. ;-) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Hashing it out [was: Re: Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers ...]
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 21:25:47 -0800 Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com wrote: can't change /opt/tomcat/webapps/eyebrowse/index/apche.org/community Man, I hope our search engine doesn't index www.apche.org. Heh, me too. I actually encountered this site at ApacheCon while Brian and David were running etherpeg. ;-) -- justin So the Lucene index directory really was set to apche.org in the database. I copied the Lucene meta data files over and ran a quick SQL update against the db to activate the apache.org version. Because of the unix permissions on that other directory, Lucene couldn't write to it and I can't remove it. Might want to nuke when you can steal a moment. -- Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: licensing issues and jars in Avalon
What I find strange in all this discussion about tools that are licensed under LGPL is, why does it matter if you do not use the tool in the actual code of the project. Take for example Checkstyle, you use this tool to check that your code conforms to a coding standard. Checkstyle does NOT: - modify project source code in anyway; - need to be imported/linked/referenced in project source code; or - need to be shipped in project deliverables. So if all of this is accepted, why does it matter that Checkstyle is licensed under LGPL? It is not being viral. I am worried that a knee jerk reaction to LGPL will prevent tools being used on Jakarta projects. Being the original author of Checkstyle - I would see this as a real shame. Regards, Oliver -Original Message- From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 6 February 2003 09:59 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: licensing issues and jars in Avalon Leo Simons wrote: recent board decree (saw it first on the infrastructure list) (paraphrasing): the ASF must not distribute software packages (in any form) licensed under LGPL, GPL or Sun Binary Code License in any way. Sun's Binary Code license permits bundling as part of your Programs. The short form of this: you can include such things in tars and zips for your release, but for individually download. In other words, users need not feel the pain, but developers do. Personally, if there are open source alternatives, my recommendation is that they should be supported instead. I've identified the following jars in avalon CVS repositories which seem like they should be removed based on the information above: - checkstyle (jakarta-avalon-apps/tools/checkstyle-all.jar and other places) (LGPL) If available, then checkstyle can be used during a build - this should not be any different than using EMACs. Preferably, the build should skip this step if checkstyle is not available. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
No, please no One of the Three Dangers of the Fire Swamp suggested: if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a *new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that is a different matter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
Sorry, I don't get this no, please not another list We will have the traffic and the posts to read anyway - no matter if we open the current or create a new public list. Or did I miss here something? -- Torsten No, please no if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a *new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that is a different matter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
* I will rejoin and stop whining about it. won't you consider being nice and doing that anyway? or is this the only price you'll accept? grin size=huge/ laugh/ No Chance. Not enough time on my hands these days. As for the rest... Sure then I propose we create another list open to the public and archived. Call it opencommunity or public or something. This achieves roughly the same objectives. -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
One of the Three Dangers of the Fire Swamp suggested: if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a *new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that is a different matter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, please no shrug I couldn't really care too much one away or another. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Classpath Licensing
Nic, Thank you for the explanation. I am cc'ing others to pass on your explanation. Hopefully this can put a few of the licensing concerns in these specific cases to rest, but if there is a need for any further clarification required, I hope that the ASF Board will contact you directly as necessary. -- Noel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nic Ferrier Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:44 To: Noel J. Bergman Cc: Chris Burdess Subject: Re: Classpath Licensing Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Serge: The Classpath author adds an addendum to allow bundling of this library into an executable, but that still won't allow us to distribute jars in CVS or downloadable with source builds (never mind Java doesn't have executables). ibiblio would still be in violation of the license, as would CVSWeb, CVS, and anything that allowed these Jars to be downloaded independently. This is not correct. The exception allows Apache (or any) code to object link to ClasspathX code. Distributing the jar file is not a problem. Noel said: By the way, if you are curious about the LGPL, I understand that one of the problems with the LGPL is this clause: When a work that uses the Library uses material from a header file that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not. Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law. Because the FSF has thus far declined to clarify the picture for Java, the preceding clause is interpreted that simply an import could be construed to contaminate the importing class. The FSF is clear on the issue. You can object link LGPLed Java with other code without special permission. This is because there is no textual inclusion. The GPL+exception btw is well understood on this side of the fence because it is the licence Guile has used for many years to protect the source code but not preventing linking to other code. Nic - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Classpath Licensing
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nic, Thank you for the explanation. I am cc'ing others to pass on your explanation. Hopefully this can put a few of the licensing concerns in these specific cases to rest, but if there is a need for any further clarification required, I hope that the ASF Board will contact you directly as necessary. Ok Noel. I don't mind peope coming to me with direct questions but I'd rather not get involved in the general discussion because: 1. I'm not a lawyer, you should talk to Eben or to rms if you need 100% lawyer proof stuff 2. discussions like this have a tendancy to go nowhere in particular. Nic - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Open this list
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One of the Three Dangers of the Fire Swamp suggested: if you want to change this to a proposal that we create a *new* opt-in list with no restrictions on subscription, i think that is a different matter. [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, please no shrug I couldn't really care too much one away or another. I care. -1 to another list, the function of which was already voted down by our developers. We all have enough lists to track already. -- Daniel Rall dlr@finemaltcoding.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
