I notice that the current JIRA "attach file" form does not default
anything, and requires the submitter to choose explicitly the
copyright status for the submission. (I think this is a change from
previous behavior, and if so, a very welcome change).
So it's now very clear that the user mus
Unless we change the name to "open binary", I'm going to agree with
Robert and Justin. Source releases are "what we're about" here.
Craig
On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the same way it's used for any other p
On 11/4/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the same way it's used for any other project: as a record of the exact
source that created the binary distributions. the source is the
release. the binaries are conveniences for users.
+1. -- justin
-
On 11/4/06, David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert, others interested,
I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going
forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used
for a project like OFBiz.
the same way it's used for any other project: as a rec
Robert, others interested,
I'm still not sure whether or not we will want to do this going
forward because I'm not sure how a source distribution would be used
for a project like OFBiz. Still, if there is any demand for it then I
agree we should do it.
However we go in the future, this w
On 11/2/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your comments. They seem to contradict what Henri is
saying. Can we continue this discussion until we reach some conclusion?
from a legal perspective:
"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state
othe
On 11/4/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/3/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification
> please?
> Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On
> the
> other hand, nobody has
The "important part" here is not to validate the process but the
provenance of the code being contributed. It does not matter whether
the code was developed in an open or closed manner, by one individual
or by many, what we have a responsibility to establish is that the
code can legally be
On 10/31/06, Mosur Ravi, Balaji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reminder: Please take a look at the proposed release and vote on it.
So far, we have a +1 from Robert.
it's a good release :-)
hopefully some of the mentors will jump in sometime soon (it might be
worth someone giving them a gentle pr
On 11/2/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
hi Jacopo
based on past comments in this list I'd like to add that this is a
pre-built release (e.g. the objects and Derby demo database are already
set up and packaged in the distribution); we did this because it can
take up to
On 11/3/06, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if I could draw your attention to this vote ratification
please?
Nobody has raised any show-stopping objections to any of the content. On
the
other hand, nobody has voted yet. I have been reading all the helpful
suggestions ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
