Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On 6/20/08, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<total snip>
So I seem to have provoked much more discussion than I intended here.
don't worry - seems to happen a lot here :-)
sorry, but discussion is good as long as we have objective and produce
something as part of the discussion.
[...]
I've lost track of the ensuing discussion. Points (1) and (2) are my
interpretation of what I thought was consensus reached on the
legal-discuss
list around dec-2007-jan-2008 leading up to release of the latest maven
remote resource bundle for apache. Getting it documented clearly would
have
been a good idea at the time but I was tired.
documentation is tough: i would describe this stuff as strongly
recommended best practice rather than mandatory policy ATM
Make sense. You're on Legal Affairs, you should really say this as a
comment there:
LEGAL-26 LICENSE and NOTICE in svn
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-26
LEGAL-27 LICENSE/NOTICE content vs package content
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-27
or comment the JIRA notifications on legal-discuss
:-)
I not wearing that hat right now. In any case I generally try to avoid
commenting on issues I'm directly involved with.
I understood you was not wearing that hat, that's why I asked to wear
it! We (JAMES PMC) need to first understand what the Legal Affairs will
reply in order to have a good/worthwhile discussion on details.
Let me repeat that I don't care if the result satisfy or not my personal
preference, but I need "ASF suggested best practices" and "ASF policies"
to be written somewhere.
This (policy/rules/personal preferences) had been an issue in my ASF
experience, I hope I can help ASF to let people like me feel better in
this community.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
