On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this
project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
was done previously. But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it
will be
On 20.10.2011 23:27, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support. And in several cases we have patches the
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
snip
At Apache, a source release is (just) what's in version control when
the release is cut, is canonical and mandatory. Other artifacts follow
the binary release
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
One last question, based on OpenOffice 3rd party dependencies.
We have a good number of MPL dependencies. I'm trying, with some
difficulty, to interpret what we can do based on the description here:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
One last question, based on OpenOffice 3rd party dependencies.
We have a good number of MPL dependencies. I'm trying, with some
difficulty, to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this
project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
was done previously. But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it
will be integrated by
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
There is no intent to hoard. From talking to developers on this
project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
was done
.
-Original Message-
From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 14:27
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: legal-disc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
[ ... ]
Now, for our SVN, we
on treatment of weak copyleft components
[ ... ]
Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source.
Is this a problem?
That normally is highly
...@apache.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
I want to point out another case that I have seen in practice, including in the
construction and deployment of binary releases for OpenOffice.org. This
discussion may impinge
Subject: Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
[ ... ]
Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source
Subject: Re: Clarification on treatment of weak copyleft components
[ ... ]
Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support. And in several cases we have patches the original source
14 matches
Mail list logo
