Well, note that this isn't strictly an IP issue. The issue here was the committers list, not the IP of the code. I don't see why all the code would need to be written by people on the initial committers list to pass IP restrictions.
These two seem like disjoint issues to me. All code in the codebase today has been committed by an approved committer with the consent of the people providing the patches, so things should be consistent on the IP front. Cheers, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Thrift On 2/4/08, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, you are right. I just doublechecked Cayenne incubator release > history, and we did clear all our IP issues before posting the first > release. Anyways, throwing away the code just to *enter* the Incubator > is neither required True > nor seems like a good approach. I don't see it any different from starting an incubation with an empty committers list where all committers need to gain karma, which is a perfectly valid incubation strategy. Starting with a clean slate code wise could be a strategy for incubation, which will alleviate any code provenance issues, and probably be a good starting point for a prosperous and healthy community. I'm not saying that thrift must do this, I just provide it as a viable alternative. Martijn --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
