Well, I had time to clean up the wiki, I'd rather use the time to contribute to JSPWiki ;-)
The doc wiki shouldn't have any copyright issues. That can be moved. /Janne On Feb 1, 2013, at 01:39 , Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: > I wish Janne, you would have gone through jspwiki.org and deleted the 20-60% > of the site that is obsolete today. Let's shrink the problem and see where > we are after that. At any rate, http://www.jspwiki.org/, as you describe it, > is an orphan work and probably not usable for us. Maybe we should just shut > it down. If we create our own Wiki (with everything henceforth Apache > licensed), within a few to several months it will probably repopulate with > the most useful material that was on the old site anyway. I would suspect > pure facts from www.jspwiki.org *can* be transferred to the new site as facts > aren't copyrightable. > > Can the Commons-licensed http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ be donated to Apache or > does it have the same copyright problem as http://www.jspwiki.org/ ? It > would be nice if we could move http://doc.jspwiki.org/2.4/ to the Apache site. > > Quote: "Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would > use the word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain." Not > necessarily, Apache doesn't own www.chemistry.com, www.tomcat.com, > www.pig.com, www.chemistry.org, www.camel.com, and probably many others. I > think the main thing though is that the site can't act like it's the Apache > product. With the two sites above shut down or moved to Apache, you might > just be able to release the domain instead of giving it to Apache. > > Glen > > > > On 01/31/2013 04:12 PM, Janne Jalkanen wrote: >> Well, because of trademark issues it would be odd that Apache would use the >> word JSPWiki and I'd have still control of the domain. I can't recall >> whether I already did the paperwork passing the name to ASF, or whether it >> was needed in the first place, but I think the consensus was that it's >> better that ASF takes control of jspwiki.org - even if it's nothing but a >> redirect to jspwiki.apache.org/wiki or wiki.jspwiki.apache.org or something. >> >> As to the content, that I can't donate to ASF (because of mixed copyrights), >> so if someone else wants to take a copy and run it on their server under >> some other domain name (or ASF graciously allows the use of old.jspwiki.org >> ;-). I cannot run it here anymore for legal reasons. >> >> /Janne >> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 00:31 , Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think we should get JSPWIKI-739 done before considering "hatching" out of >>> incubation. Right now, all of our documentation is off the Apache site and >>> our informal Wiki ("Legacy Site") is under lock-and-key due to Finnish >>> legal reasons. >>> >>> We do not need to shut down the jspwiki.org site--as that's a third-party >>> site we have no control over it (the fact that it's owned by a JSPWiki >>> committer doesn't matter, it's a third-party site and from an Apache >>> JSPWiki perspective it is outside of our control.) But we should have our >>> system documentation and probably a Wiki to be *on* the Apache site, even >>> if it's duplicated by third party sites like jspwiki.org. I would like to >>> get the Infra folks to host a JSPWiki site (we are *sooo* much faster than >>> Confluence Wikis, and we could probably get other Apache projects to adopt >>> us) but if they won't do that, and our only options are (1) hosting our >>> documentation off Apache using JSPWiki or (2) hosting our documentation on >>> Apache w/Confluence Wiki, perhaps (2), however unpleasant, should be >>> evaluated. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> On 01/30/2013 04:24 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> all the "management" stuff is done, I think that it's just matter of >>>> demonstrating community readiness/knowing the apache way, which is >>>> something rather difuse. Our next board report is due to next April, so >>>> arriving there with a second release and exposing our intentions of >>>> graduating (previous discussions, voting) should be enough to pass the >>>> graduation IPMC vote, IMO. >>>> >>>> @mentors, WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>>> br, >>>> juan pablo >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Harry Metske >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> but what about graduation, what steps are still necessary, we can't stay >>>>> in >>>>> the incubator forever... >>>>> >>>>> kind regards, >>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28 January 2013 21:38, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.9.0 was released last December, and I was wondering if we could release >>>>>> 2.9.1, somewhere in late March*. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.9.1 would be mainly a manteinance release, including not only ~15 fixed >>>>>> issues, or whatever the number of issues solved by then, but also: >>>>>> * requirement of at least Java 6 to compile (as Java 6 is being outdated >>>>>> this February I think it isn't a break-dealer) >>>>>> * ChangeLog published on site >>>>>> * initial maven support (JSPWIKI-651) >>>>>> * drop TranslatorReader (deprecated since 2.3 and unused in src) >>>>>> >>>>>> The last one should -technically- be done on 2.10 scope, but it's been >>>>> ages >>>>>> since it was deprecated and unused... Anyone using it nowadays, is it >>>>> safe >>>>>> to remove? Thoughts on the other points? >>>>>> >>>>>> * saying "late March", but meaning "as the points agreed to be included >>>>> in >>>>>> 2.9.1 are done" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> br, >>>>>> juan pablo >>>>>>
