[ perhaps we should recast this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
--On September 3, 2005 3:28:31 PM -0400 "Noel J. Bergman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, you should also be aware that there were complaints raised
regarding the Roller 1.2 release, which was posted on the
rollerweblogger.org after the project had apparently moved into the
Incubator. I defended that release as being the last thing that the
project did before really entering incubation.
And at that same time, I had also pointed out the same thing that Dave
notes regarding the license --- anyone can take the code and make a
release --- but the argument doesn't appear to be accepted by some
Directors when applied to a project's leaders.
I spent some time looking at this situation again today.
AFAICT, there is no longer any confusion regarding reverting the copyright
license in the code pulled from our Subversion repository. And, Dave's
comments recognizing that a vote should have been called is progress.
Lesson learned.
Moving forward, my take is thus: Incubating projects are often in limbo: if
anyone pulled Tomcat from our repository and tried to label their release
'Tomcat', then we'd be justifiably upset (no amount of disclaimers help).
However, for projects like Roller where the original contributor isn't used
to our policies, then it's a bit of an open question what's the right thing
to do. If the contributor intends to continue to issue 'self-releases'
(i.e. no vote and replacing their original 'donated code') from our code
base after entering Incubation, we should strongly suggest that the
Incubating project choose a different name or that the 'self-release'
snapshots be under a different name. This is to minimize confusion and
also follows the appropriate behavior for 'full' ASF projects.
However, this need not be a hard requirement if careful attention is made.
SA kept the same name; but they were very clear about the provenance of the
code in the ASF repository and didn't 'cut' releases from Subversion until
everything was cleared up legally. They maintained their old CVS
repository for 2.x releases and cut releases from that until they were
ready to release 3.0 under the Apache License. -- justin
