Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a committer of the project.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
HTH,
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK. The ${pom.name} is changed by the build process so the
generated artifact has the proper name, for example, the jar built for
wsdl2java ends up with a NOTICE file containing Apache Tuscany SCA
WSDL2Java Tool, see
Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When forking Apache licensed code, one does _not_ need to change the
package name, or anything else in the source code. One arguably
shouldn't then re-publish the binaries or source as Apache Foo [1], but
the code itself can use the same namespace.
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a committer of the
Confirm that we were past the legal hurdles. Community was the issue
here with TSIK.
thanks,
dims
On Jan 23, 2008 1:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know anything about the legal side, but it would seem to me to
be quite unacceptable to publish new releases with
Michael Wechner wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a
Michael Wechner wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is no legal requirement
J Aaron Farr wrote:
The legal committee has previously been tasked with a fork FAQ
that would cover this and the PRC team is currently working on a
trademarks FAQ that should also cover this.
And this is neither of those groups, nor have those other tasks been completed.
FWIW, your claim is
On 24/01/2008, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK.
Surely the archive bundles are also distributed?
==
There are some discrepancies in the jar files covered by the LICENSE
file - the names mentioned in the
Hi sebb
Thank you for the detailed review.
Can you tell me what you mean by
On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/01/2008, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK.
Surely the archive
On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi sebb
Thank you for the detailed review.
Can you tell me what you mean by
On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/01/2008, ant elder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are
i've been working on some scripts along the lines discussed before
[1]. they still need some tuning, documenting and i have some more
glue in mind but i hope that the concepts are clear enough now
when the mirrors sync, (boring) example output for today are in [2]
the txt is for emailing, the
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I
On Jan 25, 2008 3:02 AM, Richard S. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...I was referring to whether it would
be acceptable for him to give written approval as a JIRA comment...
I'd say yes, but to be sure it'd be better to check with
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Bertrand
16 matches
Mail list logo
