On Wednesday 30 July 2008 12:52, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I think its the other way round - requiring a vote for any change to
the docs, however minor, is bureaucracy gone mad. I think we can trust
people to decide whether they're actually changing policy (use RTC) or
just making a correction
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Craig L Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's worth noting that in the dev vote:
+1
Carsten Ziegeler
Charles Matthew Chen
Craig L Russell
Jeremias Maerki
Jukka Zitting
Carsten, Craig, Jeremias, and Jukka all cast binding votes
FWIW, that vote's
On 7/30/08, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 30 July 2008 12:52, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I think its the other way round - requiring a vote for any change to
the docs, however minor, is bureaucracy gone mad. I think we can trust
people to decide whether they're actually
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:23 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
maintain, and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of
JSecurity the final artifacts
My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
AL2. So there is no need to track down the contributors and/or rewrite
code where the contributor can not be tracked down. The AL allows
relicensing under AL2 ( :-) ),
Thanks Martijn.
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 10:15 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I've added empire-db to the reporting schedule
(http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule)
I took the liberty to add empire-db to the March, June, September,
December schema, even though our last 3-month
On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
AL2. So there is no need to track down the contributors and/or rewrite
code where the contributor can
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Andrus Adamchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
AL2. So there is no need to
I feel your pain and I know that Cayenne was in a bad spot because of
this. But if we can ease the process for others, why not?
Let's take this to legal-discuss and see what comes out. After all, that
is where the lawyers lurk.
Ciao
Henning
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 10:42
Let's take this to legal-discuss and see what comes out. After all,
that
is where the lawyers lurk.
Good idea.
Also keep in mind that the problem scope is not limited to the
projects coming to the incubator. It also affects contributions to the
existing projects by new people. Currently
One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click
currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if
they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code
people have explicity assigned their copyright to me. This was a
habit I picked up from working on
On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click
currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if
they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code
people have explicity assigned their copyright
On Monday 28 July 2008 11:41, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
And then lazy consensus for
the IP Clearance form check by the Incubator PMC.
72 hours has passed. We will continue to import the tar ball to Felix
repository.
Thanks
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here;
13 matches
Mail list logo
