Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> In general, what I recommend projects to do is follow what SA did
Keep in mind that SA *had* to do it, because they had licensing problems
with their earlier code.
As a general thing, it would be best for the developer community if they
could have all of their code in one place. That makes sense, but we still
need to make sure that we have a "firewall" to prevent brand abuse.
What would you think ... purely as talking points ... if the code for Wicket
came over to our SVN, and ...
- version 1.x code stays in the wicket.* package space, which
does not bleed any ASF branding. It is already ASF licensed.
- version 2.x code uses the org.apache.* package space.
Builds for 1.x would be based on code from here, but distributed from the
same place that they are currently distributed, with nothing to indicate at
all that they have any connection to the ASF. Builds for 2.x follow
Incubator release guidelines.
Development lists can be treated as you discussed. User lists should
probably stay on SF.net until the project graduates. Why would we want them
here?
The goal is to maintain the strict brand separation from the ASF, while
recognizing that the project already had a well-established external
existence.
And I would agree that, as with Celtix and XFire, these projects agree to
put their old versions essentially into maintenance mode until they are
ready to release from the ASF.
Again, these are just talking points.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
