All,
I believe the BatchEE podling is incorrectly set to monthly reports.
If I look at the schedule, they should have reported in June, but were late
and reported in July. I believe they should have been taken off monthly
but weren't and as a result were expected to report in August (and now
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name
usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
.jar?
This! This is such a great idea. Would love this to be weaved
Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On the other hand, somebody taking said snapshot and releasing it under the
name Project BOO, licensed under the ALv2. Is something that both the ALv2
license AND our trademark policy are totally fine with.
What if (not a fictional example; a real case) the code is
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
[Failing at dealing with this cross-posted and variously-branched discussion
on two lists,
so I am doing it too. Also OT with respect to Ross's declaration, but it has
to do with the
fact that release is
Fascinating discussion, who started this thread? ;-)
On a more serious note (actually, very serious one):
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Ross Gardler
ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
Our policy is that the combined works are RELEASED under ALv2. That combined
work
is only licensed as
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
significant deviations from the official distributions. Significant
deviations will be determined by the
