Yes, of course. Still will need a few others.
I’ll try to put together a mentor recruitment post and send it here in a few
weeks.
> On 25 Nov 2020, at 16:24, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> The idea was first brought up over a year ago by a member of the community,
>> although it's
I manage a mature open source project (as the “benevolent dictator”) and am
considering transitioning my project to community management in the Apache Way.
I have spent a few weeks reading about the Apache Incubator process including
most documentation I can find on the site, conference
Adding my congratulations and a non-binding +1
On 1/29/21, 12:32 PM, "Uma gangumalla" wrote:
Dear Incubator Community,
We have discussed Apache Ratis Podling graduation in the incubator general
DISCUSS thread[1] and We did not see any objections to proceed for voting.
Here is
The delays at Travis were primarily due to a few things:
- Limited capacity and high demand
- Abuse of the free service by cryptocurrency miners
The problem of the crypto miners has been pretty much resolved, but 1 would
still be an issue on Travis if there hadn't been a mass exit to GHA last
The quota is for private repos. Public/open-source repos are essentially
unlimited.
On 1/28/21, 9:44 PM, "Weiwei Yang" wrote:
Thank you all for the suggestions.
Looks like github action is an option, we'll give a try.
Noticed they offer 2000 action minutes/month[1] for free, I
; >
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/jenkinsci/warnings-ng-plugin/blob/master/SUPPORTED-FORMATS.md
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 00:53, leerho wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
I've been following this thread and continue to see phrases such as "major
contributors" and "significant contributions".
Given the entire premise of the conversation here is on whether there are legal
claims to IP, could you clarify, objectively, what defines "major" and/or
"significant"?
1. Calvin Kirs's vote was non-binding.
2. The only two binding votes were carried over from the PPMC. Seems the main
purpose of posting on this list is to get review from IPMC members who have not
yet seen it.
3. As Justin pointed out, 72 hours haven't passed, giving IPMC members other
than
It seems to me that knowing who has carryover votes is not important for a lazy
consensus vote.
The +1 votes are not really required except in the rare case they might be
needed to counter a -1; in which case I'd suggest intentional action following
the -1 would make more sense than saying "oh
The scala configuration file [1] appears to be a copy from [2] or its github
source at [3].
[1] ./examples/sql/src/test/resources/scalastyle_config.xml
[2] http://www.scalastyle.org/scalastyle_config.xml
[3]
I have no concerns. I am not a member of the IPMC, just an interested
participant in the conversation.
On 7/11/21, 11:25 PM, "Rohit Yadav" wrote:
Hi Daniel, Justin, IPMC,
Are you happy with the answers to satisfaction? Do you have any other
questions/concerns, or can we continue
To continue to provide clarity:
The current version (7.5.11) still has AL2.0 licensing; I just downloaded it to
confirm. Any version from 7.3.7 and newer (at this point in time) is an
acceptable dependency.
If Oracle chooses to change the license again for future releases that could
pose a
I believe there may be some confusion between Berkeley DB which is indeed GNU
AGPL v3, and Berkeley DB JE (Java Edition) which was previously GNU AGPL v3 but
switched to Apache License 2.0 with the 7.3.7 release.
Current Berkeley DB JE license is at [3]
3.
specification in your
LICENSE file, and whether there are any additional actions you should take to
require this minimum version.
From: Goson zhang
Reply-To:
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 at 9:20 PM
To: Daniel Widdis
Cc:
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) 0.8.0
Thanks for your clarifications.
Regarding "Apache" = "Quality", I'd be careful. Apache asserts [1] a maxim of
"Community over code". While certainly a broad community inevitably leads to
better code, and Apache is a good starting point, given the specificity of your
request I might start
to begin your search with such projects.
I'll back out of this conversation now and let others answer or redirect you to
other resources.
Dan
On 3/17/21, 10:21 PM, "Daniel Widdis" wrote:
Thanks for your clarifications.
Regarding "Apache" = "Quality", I'd
On 9/5/21, 7:16 PM, "Olivier Lamy" wrote:
Again the project is already Apache license from the start so any
contribution will be de facto ASF compliant
***
Linked from the blog post I cited earlier justifies this statement.
On 9/5/21, 7:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
You’ll note [1] says "All contributors of ideas, code, or documentation to
any Apache projects must complete, sign, and submit via email an Individual
Contributor License Agreement(ICLA).’ however we do allow people to contribute
without signing
I agree in general, and due diligence is specifically warranted for the case
you cite here:
> often with software grants the license changes to ALv2 just before donation
So to narrow the conversation for this specific case:
The LICENSE file was added to the repo 2019-09-30 and all files in the
quot;Olivier Lamy" wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:13, Daniel Widdis wrote:
> Code size is not the only measure of significance.
>
> Without any specialty knowledge of the domain, I would consider this
> security fix probably significant.
> https://github.c
I looked into every commit to this repository.
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/graphs/contributors
I understand from the thread there are CLAs from the two main contributors. Of
the remaining 11 committers:
- lanmaoxinqing had one substantive commit of +87/-9 lines.
- Syquel had one
Code size is not the only measure of significance.
Without any specialty knowledge of the domain, I would consider this security
fix probably significant.
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/pull/391 fixing
https://github.com/mvndaemon/mvnd/issues/390
However, the AL2.0 license states:
> Unless
I can't speak to the specifics of Apache, but I have used the repository
transfer feature to move a project from a personal account to an organizational
account, and it preserves all the issues, PRs, commit history, etc., simply
changing the Github URL. I wouldn't think there would be any
> taking creative common license code and making modifications to it
I visited the indicated page [1] and there is no code there. The code appears
to have represented connecting letters to match the image on that page.
The license on the image itself [2] indicates that it is public domain.
I
Generally in agreement, but:
> given there may be a license issue and it's very easy to fix, why not fix it?
Any "fix" will look like the old code and thus be "modified".
The new graph in this case happens to have the same number of nodes and arcs as
the original copyrighted artwork, but
> It unclear what has been used from that page, there is text, code and images
> on it all under different licenses.
It's very clear to me. The code you linked to is simply a representation of
what nodes link to what other nodes by a directed arc. For example, the top
two sites labeled B and
+1 (non-binding)
On 1/15/22, 3:22 PM, "Willem Jiang" wrote:
Hi all,
Following up the [DISCUSS] thread on Hugegraph[1], I would like to call a
VOTE to accept Hugegraph into the Apache Incubator.
Please cast your vote:
[ ] +1, bring Hugegraph into the Incubator
[ ]
Hi, LuNing.
I am not an IPC member, just an interested open source enthusiast looking for a
project to contribute to.
I was excited about contributing to another project that recently joined the
incubator but as someone who only speaks English, I have had a challenge when a
large number of
+1 (non-binding)
On 4/23/22, 7:26 PM, "陈明雨" wrote:
Dear Incubator Community,
After having the discussion in Doris community[1][2], we have passed the
community vote[3].
And then made a discussion in general@incubator[4]. We got a lot of
positive responses.
And have
I trust your lawyer will know better than I will about the trademark. I simply
entered "firestorm software" into a search engine and got a product that's not
yours, available since at least July 2017.
This site [1] has the general naming guidance and the existence of the other
software may
I'm not an ASF warlord or general. In fact, I don't think such things exist.
It's about community. Decisions are made by communities. Warlords, generals,
and benevolent dictators don't fit well.
Related, I don't see anything "community" in your post. You state "I" have got
code, not "we".
/
From: m sacks
Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 5:58 PM
To: Daniel Widdis ,
Subject: Re: Proposal
So I’m not sure if this made it either: is there at least one person interested
in collaborating on this project it involves GPT three?
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:47 PM m sacks wrote
Adding onto this, even if there may be no legal trademark issue, there is other
software by this name which makes it less than desirable. Quoted from [1]
> Avoiding search-results confusion is important for another reason. Apache
> projects are often very quickly highly ranked. An Apache
+1 (non-binding) from me! Good luck!
On 5/24/22, 9:05 AM, "Jerry Shao" wrote:
Hi all,
Due to the name issue in thread (
https://lists.apache.org/thread/y07xjkqzvpchncym9zr1hgm3c4l4ql0f), we
figured out a new project name "Uniffle" and created a new Thread. Please
help to
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:49 PM Ye Xianjin wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding).
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On May 25, 2022, at 9:59 AM, Goson zhang
wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
>
+1 to this. Would love to see both groups come together.
On 5/17/22, 11:50 PM, "Sheng Wu" wrote:
Hi Firestorm community
Considering what Yu Li is proposing, I would recommend you could do
some discussions directly, maybe off the list if you want.
Both of the projects are
org/thread/w3btsx6l8gf0ognds8b6bng1ng4ccg00
-David
On 2022/07/18 04:58:00 Daniel Widdis wrote:
> Thanks for the clarity, David.
>
> Given the clear "commit trail" for individual committers and the ICLAs I
don't see a problem there. I think the only question that
here does not appear to have ever
been any different headers.
[5] - https://github.com/rafael-telles/arrow/tree/flight-jdbc-driver
[6] -
https://github.com/apache/arrow/compare/master...rafael-telles:arrow:flight-jdbc-driver
On 7/16/22, 11:13 AM, "Daniel Widdis" wrote:
> > Isn't developing on a fork of the project and submitting a PR
considered "developed inside the project”?
> Sure, but then you usually don’t need a software grant.
Ah, but I do. When submitting a PR to an ASF project (e.g., [1]) I have had to
either submit an ICLA (which I have)
Isn't developing on a fork of the project and submitting a PR considered
"developed inside the project"?
When I contribute to Apache projects, I fork the project, write code using the
project's headers, and submit a PR from my fork. I never claim copyright as my
own or use my own header.
Based on this blog post [1] it appears that the entire development was done in
a sequence of draft PRs on the Arrow site (and on a fork), with the intention
of donating it, and using ASF headers.
Proposal: [2]
Initial POC work: [3]
Experimental version: [4]
[1] -
Thanks for the clarity, David.
Given the clear "commit trail" for individual committers and the ICLAs I don't
see a problem there. I think the only question that may need a bit more
clarity is the relationship of Dremio to the contributions. I know my own
employer has boilerplate legal
A few additional comments here:
1. As Justin said, you can select which one you want to choose (and ALv2 is a
good choice!). Some projects take extra measures to explicitly state which of
the two options they elect.
2. The ALv2 + LGPL option is common, primarily to accommodate projects under
For my own education, I dug into this particular LICENSE [1] which is not just
plain GPL2, it is granted under the Universal FOSS License version 1.0 [2].
But it's still Category X despite this.
The question for this specific software is answered at [3] with suggestions for
what to do instead.
44 matches
Mail list logo
