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 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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
* 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,
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
--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
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
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:
-
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
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*
* 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
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
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
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
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,
27 matches
Mail list logo
