Board members: I seem to recall that the long form is required... is
there any definitive statement to this effect that can be used as
guidance to the various projects?
PMC members: this seems to me to be a PMC issue.
Original Message
Subject: Re: Licence short or long
Date
Hi Chunk,
Yes, that does parse better, although the peculiarities of the ASF
structure are beyond me, I'm afraid. One day I must do some serious
study. Thanks for following up on this.
Peter
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> Well, if by "ASF" you mean the board, then that sentence parses better.
> B
--Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: June 27, 2002 7:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Licence short or long
>
>
> Which means, I suppose, that we do nothing until we receive official
> notification from the ASF.
>
> Pete
Which means, I suppose, that we do nothing until we receive official
notification from the ASF.
Peter
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Arved
>
> I totally agree with you. What confuses me, though, is the fact that the
> ASF doesn't control and enforce its policies in every project.
> Communication is
Arved
I totally agree with you. What confuses me, though, is the fact that the
ASF doesn't control and enforce its policies in every project.
Communication is the key. as always
> > I think I need to bring up a subject that not so comfortable but that
> > has to be brought up again IMO.
On Wednesday 26 June 2002 22:42, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>. . .
> We have the short form
> but it seems like we have to switch (back?) to the long form.
>. . .
I agree, Stefano's message [1] in the thread you mention makes it clear, ". .
.the ASF board, to avoid confusion, wants everybody to stic
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: June 26, 2002 5:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Licence short or long
>
>
> Hi committers
>
> I think I need to bring up a subject that not so comfortable but that
> h
Hi committers
I think I need to bring up a subject that not so comfortable but that
has to be brought up again IMO. On the Avalon dev list they fight again
between long and short licences in source code. We have the short form
but it seems like we have to switch (back?) to the long form.
Here's
