On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet
our arbitrary criteria.
That sort of thinking just seems so Borg to me. It's another way of
saying that a software product only has value if its hosted by the
ASF.
If a
sebb wrote:
I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
I think it's therefore important to fix this.
From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal to solve
this is the following:
---8---
Apache
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
I find the current NOTICE rather misleading - it looks as though the
whole of JCS is licensed under a Xerox licence.
I think it's therefore important to fix this.
From re-reading the NOTICE file, I agree with you. My proposal
sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
the LICENSE file, with the appropriate introduction.
The LICENSE.txt file is supposed to contain the ASL
On 30/05/07, Thomas Vandahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
I beg to differ, but I will not go into this again.
I suggest you remove the Xerox license header from it, and add it to
the LICENSE file, with the appropriate
i understand this project is dormant. i would still like to download the
source. i can not seem to locate a download location. if anyone can give
me a pointer that would be very helpful.
thank you.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited httpd project)
to that?
Best regards
On 5/30/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:00 +0100, sebb wrote:
The NOTICE file is not supposed to contain any licenses.
What makes you think so? I am still a bit stumped that you so strongly
insist on this. Is there any reference (besides the cited
Surprisingly hard to find.
Watchdog has technically moved to tomcat.apache.org, but as it was
dormant before then there's not been a lot done but move the svn over
there. ie) Jakarta still has the 'it's dormant' bit, but as it moved
the download page was removed.
Looking in
On 5/30/07, Peter J Allenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i understand this project is dormant. i would still like to download the
source. i can not seem to locate a download location. if anyone can give
me a pointer that would be very helpful.
snip/
You could go to the repository:
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
== non binding.
If it were in effect, then yes, the paragraph
--- cut ---
* Reciprocity
Required by some Components: Some included third-party works are
licensed under terms that require distribution of
On 30/05/07, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, I know this.
Status
Version: 0.52
Effective Date. N/A (proposed)
== non binding.
However:
http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
says much the same, and seems to be policy.
Hi,
for those who are interested: A new version 0.5 of the Release Audit
Tool is available from
http://code.google.com/p/arat/
Compared to the previous version 0.4.1, the following changes have been made:
* Added header matcher for DoJo.
* Refactoring existing codebase to separate concerns
13 matches
Mail list logo
