That is fine. If the OSGi alliance does not change their policy about publishing the specs early we can live with that. I just wanted to state that I think there would be good reasons to change the policy.
The OSGi alliance would benefit of better and earlier feedback and we would benefit of a clear IP process and early access to the specs. Christian 2017-01-23 22:28 GMT+01:00 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]>: > > > This goes back to what I said several times last week, we can only > change our side (Apache) but we can't change the OSGi Alliance side. > > I think having a separate commit for the API and mentioning some > reference like the commit id or similar is a good idea. However, only > developers working for a member company of the OSGi Alliance can verify > this. But in practice, we have a lot of committers here being able to do > so, including Guillaume. > > Carsten > > Guillaume Nodet wrote > > As discussed on legal@ (see [1]), and in order to be able to track code > IP > > correctly, I propose that all commits that includes API code from the > OSGi > > Alliance are done in separate commit and include a reference to the > public > > source where the code comes from. > > > > Thoughts ? > > Guillaume > > > > [1] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201701.mbox/% > 3ccaa66tppc9lp71ak4uoxsnz8qzg+bnutyntzspbt+z48dynu...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected] > -- -- Christian Schneider http://www.liquid-reality.de <https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.liquid-reality.de> Open Source Architect http://www.talend.com <https://owa.talend.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=3aa4083e0c744ae1ba52bd062c5a7e46&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.talend.com>
