On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
orwittm...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
the Boost C++ source libraries which we are using in our project can still
be used under the Apache's rules.
The Boost Software License Version 1.0 is now been classified as a category
A license -
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
snip
The problem is that the ASF do not want to host and provide services of
special software for single projects. I can understand this as even the ASF
infra is a team of volunteers and their time is limited as it is
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Dennis, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I read somewhere, and I don't know where, that ASF did not want torrents to
be used.
I'm guessing that the issue
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
I read somewhere, and I don't know where, that ASF did not want torrents to
be used.
The meaning and force of this statement is hard to judge without a full context
Apache has surprisingly and confusingly
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
Hi Robert, *,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Christian Lohmaier
cl...@openoffice.org wrote:
[...]
That doesn't make
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 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 Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hmm ...
We have discussed some of the things that must be replaced but we have not
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello;
This header has license issues:
main/agg/inc/agg_conv_gpc.h
It is part of the General Poligon Clipper and unlike the rest of AGG its
free only for non commercial use.
I would delete it myself but my desktop
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
Another question that has come up based on review of OpenOffice code.
If a 3rd party module is used as part of the build or test automation,
but is not part of our release, do we care about whether it is
copyleft? Or do we
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
One observation, before it slips through. Depending on gpl#39;d compilers
and tools that we don#39;t carry in the release is fine AFAICT.
In our bootstrap procedure we use Dmake (gplv1), which we must remove in
favor of
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
This question came up a few months ago, when we initially started the
podling. The legacy OOo project had many mailing lists which were for
non-English list traffic.
snip
So that's my proposal. I have my asbestos underwear
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
snip
It is not clear to me that either of those bundlings in binary releases is
explicitly tolerated by the information that is provided at
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html. There seems to be no help in
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 rules
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Ross Gardler
rgard...@opendirective.com wrote:
snip
In other words, make every action of the PPMC as inclusive as possible.
+1
Projects developed the Apache way only stay healthy when there is a
continual flow from user to contributor to committer to PMCer.
2011/10/15 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
So, strategy Will Apache Rat help with this? I thought it had
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I think we discussed this before but it would be excellent
if Robert can further clarify it once and for all.
Apache process evolves :-)
Opinions differ and consensus emerges forever but I'll add a few words
to the mix...
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is a wonderful idea and I would like to add an additional item
-- can we get a list of folks who have submitted iCLAs toward this project,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Shane Curcuru a...@shanecurcuru.org wrote:
And I'm on El Reg!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/14/apache_openoffice_alive_well/
Hope I did OK in the interview. At least I got a good closing quote, even
if it was a little tweaked in the story.
Perhaps in
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Thank you Robert you've been very clear, but ...
--- On Thu, 10/13/11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
...
Please jump in where I've been unclear)
...
It is vital that only the owner (or their agent) alters a
copyright
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
It is vital that only the owner (or their agent) alters a copyright
notice unless specific written permission been granted
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
snip
Honestly, I see clear answers from legal-discuss for only a small
fraction of the questions that are submitted. I don't know if we're
misusing that list or what. But it does not appear to operate like a
list where
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
snip
The question that Simon is asking is simple. Some have read the best
wishes to TDF and LibreOffice as being sarcastic and mean spirited. I
certainly didn't read it that way. The issue seems to be that the paragraph
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Ah well. I've seen those kinds of blogs, that are essentially announcements.
So it is a notices mechanism with a syndication feed. I will have to go
look at one of the ones that seems to get lots of hits
(Using [1] as an illustration. I recommend [2] for further reading.
Please jump in where I've been unclear)
A copyright notice is a simple claim of copyright ownership: for
example Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.
It is vital that only the owner (or their agent) alters a
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi;
Looking at how big, and mostly cosmetic but necessary, a
change it will be to bring in all the SGA license changes,
and given that it requires manual intervention and is not
something that can be done in one huge mega
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Off-topic. Please drop this line of inquiry and
return to the Subject of this thread, which is
about determining required info for the crypto export
declaration.
Which is collecting a list of sources [1] :-)
OOo uses
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Please just do it this way:
http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
ASF is very clear on what is required for *its* releases and this page
appears to be comprehensive.
The Apache rules break down into reporting
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Please just do it this way:
http://www.apache.org/dev
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
Following the instructions[3], step 1 is to work out whether OOo
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
EAR 740.13(e) should be on
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfrsid=bad7a54a31430303e17ce648c13e51b3rgn=div5view
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Let me see if I can help ground this.
Currently, digest algorithms are used for a variety of things. The common
case is SHA1. These are not themselves a concern, as I understand it, since
their function is
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Let me see if I can help ground this.
Remember, the export could be of code, not just the binaries. So if
we have code that does asymmetrical
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Technically, this was to have been resolved before the code was put up on
SVN. We need to audit specifically for this rather quickly, and including
the places that Rob also identified (import-export filters and
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
For the magical case of binaries that are not built from the Apache code,
what occurred to me first were shared libraries (.DLL or .SO, as well as
CLASSPATH goodies and .JAR files) and also executables that
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2011 7:54 AM, Jens-Heiner Rechtien jhrecht...@web.de wrote:
On 06/29/2011 01:19 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
...
This process sounds exactly like what the buildout tool[1] is
designed to handle. It seems like a good
(Reintroducing myself, I'm an Apache Member with some knowledge of
releases, builds and legal stuff. I signed up to provide some hands on
help in these areas. I've also been involved with the Incubator for a
while so I might also jump in with .)
(At Apache, we conventionally avoid top posting and
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
Top-posting is just fine for replies where you're talking about the
message in general. If you're replying to specific pieces, then yeah:
in-line comments are best.
We have no rules against top-posting at Apache. We want to
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:34, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote:
snip
Of course, if you think you are close to having a clean version of
OOo ready to check in, then I don't want to interrupt the fine work
that you are
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Michael Stahl m...@openoffice.org wrote:
one thing that is currently unclear to me is whether/how Apache OOo may
depend on code licensed under a Category B license.
the most prominent specimen of this category is the MPL.
(Apache is mailing-list centric and
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
snip
When Oracle will shutdown the main server for distributing release files,
then also the mirrors will delete them (except GWDG which I've asked to host
the files longer).
So, we have to rebuild a little mirror
41 matches
Mail list logo
