On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
this is also the case for Nightly Builds, accessible by the
public; Legally they are publishing to the public (i.e. opposite of
'for private use') and bound by licenses and agreements.
And finally, from Copyright law
- Original Message
From: Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:03:51 AM
Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to do policy (was: Re:
Publishing api docs for Subversion)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's
really
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
Niall Pemberton wrote:
You're taking a
policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to
something it wasn't intended to cover.
Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases
doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the
same copyright
Doug Cutting wrote:
In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order
I have not objected to anything.
Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb object in a prior message:
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
It's fine to make nightly builds available, including of documentation. All
I'm suggesting is that, just as nightly builds should not be linked to from
the general download page, nightly documentation should not be linked
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction, so
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup. Niclas has no clue
what he's talking about when liability considerations are factored in,
and as this is not a list where legal council for the ASF makes itself
available I suggest his
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
You are right that it is a big IMHO of everything here, but
self-selected subgroup is not a legal term in
Hey hey,
I wasn't going to say anything but since this is dragging on...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
Would we permit someone to mirror other files from trunk on the website?
Yes, definitely. Most projects publish their websites by pushing files
into
12 matches
Mail list logo
