all of the members (we can approve as many interim drafts as we
> > like).
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:14 PM
> > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
owever, we have also
> > agreed as working principal not to publish spec drafts without
agreement
> > from all of the members (we can approve as many interim drafts as we
> > like).
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Frem
gt; To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project IP, was: Recursive core architectural overview
>
> Thanks Jeremy
>
> I fully understand the ICLA and CCLA process. After all as an Apache
> Committer I've signed one and I also was involved in pushing Steve
> Gerdt at IBM to
scany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project IP, was: Recursive core architectural overview
Thanks Jeremy
I fully understand the ICLA and CCLA process. After all as an Apache
Committer I've signed one and I also was involved in pushing Steve
Gerdt at IBM to develop a corporate policy for CLAs
Paul,
I'll try to spell out the way that the SCA Specification
collaboration works and the IP rules that apply. I'll
do this in a post following from Mike Rowley's note on
"Project IP"
Yours, Mike.
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Jim
I understand the IP and Royalty requirements of the published
: Re: Project IP, was: Recursive core architectural overview
Thanks Jeremy
I fully understand the ICLA and CCLA process. After all as an Apache
Committer I've signed one and I also was involved in pushing Steve
Gerdt at IBM to develop a corporate policy for CLAs when I was at IBM.
As regard
Thanks Jeremy
I fully understand the ICLA and CCLA process. After all as an Apache
Committer I've signed one and I also was involved in pushing Steve
Gerdt at IBM to develop a corporate policy for CLAs when I was at IBM.
As regards the feedback license, I wasn't questioning the ability for
Apach
Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
>> and track the specs
>
>
> That is the concern, if we are tracking unpublished specs. If you are
> under an NDA with the spec group, then you may not have had the right
> to contribute the code that you contributed to the sandbox. As no-one
> has yet answered my questio
Jeremy
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Geronimo has private lists for stuff under NDA and has had various
people on different expert groups (e.g. a couple of us were on JSR-220).
In general, there are a lot of Apache projects that work with the JCP
and deal with the closed nature of JSRs - Tomca
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Jim
Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to
published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given
the
closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out.
Geronimo has pri
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Jim
>
> Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to
> published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given the
> closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out.
>
Geronimo has private lists for stuff under NDA and has had var
Jim
Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to
published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given the
closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out.
Paul
On 6/7/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul,
I'm going to ask others more vers
Paul,
I'm going to ask others more versed in legalities to jump in
regarding your questions...I do have a quick question though: how
does Geronimo handle this as I believe the JCP IP rules are far more
restrictive than those associated with the specs?
Thanks,
Jim
On Jun 7, 2006, at 11:4
Simon
I'm have concerns about both these approaches.
Regarding the first proposal, there might be IP or other requirements
that joining the spec collaboration involves that might not be
suitable for some Tuscany committers. I'm not clear what is involved
in joining the spec group but I'm guessin
Jim
I understand the IP and Royalty requirements of the published spec.
But what I don't understand is the IP and Royalty requirements of what
you refer to as the "spec group". I couldn't find anything on
osoa.org.
You talk about greater collaboration between the spec group and the
tuscany group
I can think of a couple of options that might work.
1. All Tuscany participants could join the spec collaboration and
get first-hand information on issues and agreed changes.
2. Set up a private Apache mailing list on which non-public spec
information could be distributed and discussions co
The IP is royalty free and the license is printed in the body of the
specifications. The specifications can be found at members'
sites,e.g. http://dev2dev.bea.com/pub/a/2005/11/sca.html. On
membership, I'm copying Mike Edwards since he is better at explaining
that process than myself.
J
Jim
That's very interesting. It sounds similar to some work going on in
Synapse where we have a recursive composition model.
I think one of the key questions in forging greater links between
Tuscany and the spec group is what the IP and membership regulations
around the spec group?
Is there a w
Good question...
In the spec group, one of the major changes we are currently
undertaking is a move to a recursive model where components can
either be leaf-types ("atomic") or composite, in which case they may
contain children. In previous versions of the spec we had a two-level
model (m
By the way can someone explain what the term "Recursive Core
Architecture" means?
Paul
On 6/6/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It looks as if we have the choice of Thursday or Friday this week, or
rescheduling for two weeks. I'd prefer we do it this week.
Jim
On Jun 6, 2006, at 1:28
It looks as if we have the choice of Thursday or Friday this week, or
rescheduling for two weeks. I'd prefer we do it this week.
Jim
On Jun 6, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Next week would be better for me. I'm landing home from the US on
Friday and 8-10PST is 4-6pm on Friday eveni
Next week would be better for me. I'm landing home from the US on
Friday and 8-10PST is 4-6pm on Friday evening which aint popular in
blighty :-)
Paul
On 6/6/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm out all next week so it sounds as if Friday is the best time for
most people.
Jim
On Jun
I'm out all next week so it sounds as if Friday is the best time for
most people.
Jim
On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Rick wrote:
I like to second all of what Ant wrote and also Ken Tam asked if it
could not be delayed till next week. I'd like to be up to speed and
just a few days more would
I like to second all of what Ant wrote and also Ken Tam asked if it
could not be delayed till next week. I'd like to be up to speed and just
a few days more would help to digest it all to be more informed, but
I'll go with Friday if that's what it is.
ant elder wrote:
I agree 100% with Ken, cou
I agree 100% with Ken, could you give just a little more information about
whats going on here? That email just gives hints - there's been some SCA
spec changes, there's some code in the the sandbox for "recursive core
architecture work" and "to clearly demarcate the runtime extension
mechanism."
That works for me.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Friday is OK for me, but I'd prefer not to go too late in this
time zone. Can we do this from 8.00 to 10.00 am PDT?
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Kenneth Tam wrote:
I am very interested in this, but the short notice also co
Yes this would be appreciated. Can you make sure it's in a common
graphic format - I'm too cheap to shell out the $$ for a UML tool ;-)
Jim
On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I have created some basic slides and UML diagrams when I looked
into the
Friday is OK for me, but I'd prefer not to go too late in this
time zone. Can we do this from 8.00 to 10.00 am PDT?
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Kenneth Tam wrote:
I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me.
Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say
Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created some basic slides and UML diagrams when I looked into the
> sandbox code last week (I need to do some adjustments since more
> refactorings were checked in). I can upload them into the wiki and
> Jim/Jeremy can verify to see if it's helpful.
>
Thanks
Kenneth Tam wrote:
> I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me.
> Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say Friday?) or
> sometime next week so that more people on the list get a chance to
> find out about it and fit it into their schedules?
>
Friday woul
ginal Message -
From: "Kenneth Tam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Recursive core architectural overview
I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me.
Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say Frid
I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me.
Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say Friday?) or
sometime next week so that more people on the list get a chance to
find out about it and fit it into their schedules?
Also, Jim & Jeremy -- if you guys have a
Jim Marino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has been some mention offline of Jeremy and I providing an
> overview of changes to the SCA specifications and related recursive
> core architecture work going on in the sandbox, perhaps Wednesday. I'm
> happy to do this, however, I'm a bit concerned that since
Hi,
There has been some mention offline of Jeremy and I providing an
overview of changes to the SCA specifications and related recursive
core architecture work going on in the sandbox, perhaps Wednesday.
I'm happy to do this, however, I'm a bit concerned that since this
has not been broug
34 matches
Mail list logo
