On 4/4/13, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04.04.2013 10:17, Ryan Ollos wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If I understand things correctly we need to get code grant regardless of >>> the license. >>> In that case the willingness of authors to give them is more important >>> than >>> current license. >>> >> I discussed the issue of the code grant with the plugin author this >> evening >> and he's not willing to sign the document. He has given me full control >> to >> develop the plugin wherever and in whatever ways that I see fit, but he >> has >> "no interest in entering legal arrangements with the ASF". I have no idea >> why that is, but I feel that I will make no progress in changing his mind >> by continuing a discussion of the matter with him. > [...] > It all depends on the license. If it's the same as Trac's we can simply > create another vendor branch and make modifications locally.
If the plugin developed @ tho is compatible with BH why will we need a vendor branch ? (<= just asking to understand if this is about something implied by any license or so) > Of course, > it'd be much easier if we could just develop the original tree; and even > better if the plugin could be made multi-hosted, i.e., compatible with > both Trac and BH (whith possibly exposing additional features in BH, > e.g., multiproduct awareness). > @rjollos: is there any objections to release BH-compatibility code with forthcoming versions of the plugin ? That's what I'll be doing with the plugins I maintain and will make things much more easy . -- Regards, Olemis.
