+1
Mike
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Dan Peterson dpeter...@google.com wrote:
Hello all,
We'd like to propose Wave for entry into the ASF incubator.
The draft proposal is available at:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WaveProposal
(for your convenience, a snapshot is also copied
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson from his
google.com address. I imagine that if Google had a problem with it,
then he wouldn't
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann
bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote:
PS: It would've been much better to first [DISCUSS] the proposal
before putting it up for vote.
I don't see a [VOTE] here.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:26, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann
bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote:
PS: It would've been much better to first [DISCUSS] the proposal
before putting it up for vote.
I don't see a [VOTE]
On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an
issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away
from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none
of both is required.
Exactly,
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:07 +0100, Bernd Fondermann
bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 01:35, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Simple review: the original email was sent by Dan Peterson
On Nov 26, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Bernd Fondermann bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I wouldn't stop the proposal, though. This can be identified as an
issue to be solved in Incubation - either by changing the name away
from 'Wave' or by transferring marks or even by determining that none
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Yet, we have in the past had similar situations, where we have not
allowed this kind of position. In the end, you are now encouraging
that Apache WAVE, Google WAVE and Niclas WAVE are totally fine,
possibly not the same
- Original Message
From: Tad Glines tad.gli...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Yet, we have in the
On Nov 26, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Tad Glines tad.gli...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 9:47:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Accept Wave for incubation
The word Wave is far more generic than
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
The Jena podling has asked me. Their situation is that an HP copyright
is thought to cover all the 'corporate' code, and they wonder if there
is any reason for them to chase an SGA on
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't find anything in [1] that states any conditions in which a
CCLA won't do and an SGA is required instead.
CCLA has been seen as required for individuals, working at the
company, to protect them from the
Hi Benson,
I think of a CCLA as a combination of an SGA to cover the software
grant plus an acknowledgement that people in the company are going to
work on Apache projects, whether on their own time or company time.
So, if a CCLA is filed naming the software, a separate SGA is *not*
13 matches
Mail list logo
