Eberhard/Bertrand/all, I haven't followed that in detail (sorry, but I also have to help especially Apache getting its act together with JSR-362, the Java Portlet 3.0 API where there's been a discrepancy between the "Apache Way" of how it was developed and how people then ended up using the Portlet-API[?]) although especially to the Portlet EG I spoke about DeviceMap and possible synergies.
You should be able to see who committed that, and if people involved in OpenDDR commit code here (I didn't activate my user, so I don't commit to the repository yet, but others like Stefano have an @apache.org mail ID by now, so they should have commit rights, too) How about dual-licensing stuff, I know we keep talking about that day in and out at JCP.org (EC, JCP.next WGs) and some JSRs especially those going into Java EE 7 practice that quite often. So if an original author and committer has the IP right to contribute something (I'm not talking about a R/O user of GitHub who would copy it from OpenDDR and then funnel it over into the DeviceMap repository) to both, why would you have to remove that? That'll kill the whole progress here and it's not like we're boasting with activity or public recognition anyway[?] Werner On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi Eberhard, > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:29 AM, eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...Is everybody off to the beach... > > I've been drowned by other work rather than water so far ;-) > > > ...OpenDDR released new resources (1.20) 4 days ago.... > > BTW, it looks like some of the data that's been committed to our svn > repository recently comes from OpenDDR, but hasn't been explicitly > donated by them, is that correct? If yes I'm afraid we'll have to > remove that unless there's an explicit donation (or commits by someone > who's explicitly approved by OpenDDR, which is only Werner so far > AFAIK), as Apache only accepts voluntary contributions. > > > > > ...So, what are the plans/suggestions on how to proceed with the release > ?... > > I'd say resolve the above question about the data provenance and then > we can proceed. It's fine, and probably better, to release the C# and > Java modules separately, as their target audience is distinct. > > -Bertrand >
