Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Will Glass-Husain wrote: Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently. Okay. It just didn't LOOk that way. I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the new structure, I see individual cases where committers have cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a big impact for many subprojects. +1 So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta, make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that we should discuss publically? +1 There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue. +1 I'd like to see a TLP. Or baring that an exit. WILL On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: > On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: >> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. >> > >> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had >> suggested the >> > requirement. >> > >> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original >> details? >> >> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer >> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. >> >> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly >> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to >> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking >> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd >> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP >> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between >> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am >> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold >> for any of our mailing lists. >> >> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive >> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they >> hold any weight or value to the ASF. > > Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making > sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets > to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them > [Geir?]. > > Hen > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
The alias is immaterial to me -Andy Roland Weber wrote: Andrew C. Oliver wrote: [...] I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER. How about "compound documents" -> compdocs or compdogs? That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff (Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > [...] > I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to > Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. That's a very unspecific name. "formats" can mean anything, from formatting a file system to data formats/representations like BER. How about "compound documents" -> compdocs or compdogs? That's probably better than some acronym like jivoff (Java Implementations of Various Office File Formats :-) cheers, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Andy-- No one was going to railroad this through without input from POI. See my previous email where I insisted that we have POI participation. (and I would have -1'd this automatically if it had been lacking). The discussion was civil up until recently. I am wondering about this vote though. Why now? and what's the significance of POI/Jakarta svn access merging? To me it seems the flattening of svn is of little significance. After a year with the new structure, I see individual cases where committers have cross-pollinated (in commons, perhaps) but it hasn't seemed to make a big impact for many subprojects. So, then - Martin - why are you calling for a vote? Is there a pressing need to get access to POI svn? Are there patches being submitted but not going in? Are you just trying to clean up Jakarta, make it more definable? Or is there something going on with POI that we should discuss publically? There's a reasonable discussion that could be held about the role of POI and Jakarta. Maybe we should have that discussion instead of voting on a controversial but practically insignificant issue. WILL On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: > On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: >> > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. >> > >> > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had >> suggested the >> > requirement. >> > >> > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original >> details? >> >> My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer >> many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. >> >> From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a >> commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly >> as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to >> that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking >> the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd >> legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP >> (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between >> two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am >> not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold >> for any of our mailing lists. >> >> Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive >> of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they >> hold any weight or value to the ASF. > > Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making > sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets > to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them > [Geir?]. > > Hen > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hey I have an idea! If it doesn't pass this time we can call another vote right before the next holiday and hope that none of the POI PMC members are around... Then 3 months later do it again. -1 (because my votes don't seem to be counted and Henri will make up backstory for me) Henri Yandell wrote: On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. > > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the > requirement. > > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
I feel a bit attacked for no reason really (regarding the barbs thrown in my direction). It has been some time since I have not been rather civil on this list and I would expect the return courtesy. I've always tried to make a good faith effort with regards to POI. I have never supported (and voted against) the other jakarta flattening thing and at the time it was disingenuously provided (I never reversed my -1 vote you just ignored it). Originally if memory serves (like 5 yrs ago) the legal issue came from our mentor into Jakarta (Stefano Mazzocchi) and following that based on some early issues with legal stuff that was a real thread and some real concerns and scenarios (some of which has to do with an individual that did become a very spirited contributor elsewhere). That stuff should not be vetted publicly and probably not on the PMC list. We very nearly did have a REAL problem in the past that would have put the project and the ASF in jeopardy and steps were taken to require a personal assurance. I still have no personal desire to have the same people who brought me commons automatically in POI. I would like to see a formats.apache.org project which was devoted to Java/Ruby/C# APIs for office software file formats and more. However I don't wish to be chair. I would support nick as chair though and lend him what assistance I can. With the launch of Buni (http://buni.org) my time for repeating votes every few months because you're a sore looser while throwing barbs at me is seriously limited. I do however welcome constructive good-intentioned dialog -Andy Nick Burch wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. OK, I'm happy to be corrected :) Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the requirement (which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I don't see why we couldn't drop the restriction. I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1 Nick (I am from POI) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. -1 from me. Harmony doesn't let anyone commit on their project unless they they sign a statement saying they haven't looked at Sun's source code[1]. AFAIK this is a similar issue and the POI policy [2] is designed to protect POI, which as a user of POI is a good thing IMO. Even if this fear is actually unfounded seems like a sensible policy to err on the side of caution. Niall [1] http://harmony.apache.org/auth_cont_quest.html [2] http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/getinvolved/index.html [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -1. You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats. what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do? It should be pretty obvious what Martin's interest is - making sure Jakarta is running correctly. Your request that a committer state that they have/are not bound by a microsoft NDA is ignorable as you're just speaking for yourself personally and not for the ASF or Jakarta. It's meaningless and a sign that things are not correct in POI. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
-1. You are of course misrepresenting the issue but okay. It is also because of the legal issues. Go read the archive and provide a good faith assertion rather than making an assumption. If YOU want to work on POI please submit some patches and following that should you wish to be a committer then respond that you are not now and have never been bound by a microsoft NDA regarding the file formats. what is your interest here? Do you have nothing better to do? -Andy Martin van den Bemt wrote: Hi everyone, You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. > > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the > requirement. > > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Additionally - Harmony setup some extra process to help with making sure everyone involved knew that the ASF didn't want any trade secrets to be exposed - so there may be something that POI can learn from them [Geir?]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hm, does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from Andy? As long as we're not soliciting trade secrets - tis good. I suspect this is a case of Andy's lawyer back in the day either having a different opinion or it being a different scenario/context. I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise, this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart. Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-) Nick's been doing lots of work over there :) I'm +1 for opening, unless it's decided that POI does need to add extra process to protect from trade secrets. Currently the view is that it doesn't - however chatting with Harmony to find out how things worked for them would be of value. On TLP - the main worry is that POI lacks overlap with the rest of the ASF - more like an Incubator project than a normal TLP [maybe that's too harsh]. My thinking is that we (Jakarta PMC) need to bring them up to speed and then decide whether things are fitting or not. Apart from the legal issue and the insularity - I'm +1 for POI becoming a healthy happy part of Jakarta. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Henri Yandell wrote: Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. OK, I'm happy to be corrected :) Assuming the Apache legal team are happy with us dropping the requirement (which I take from Martin's email that they are?), then I don't see why we couldn't drop the restriction. I'm all for getting more Jakarta participation in POI, and more POI participation in the rest of Jakarta. That said, I think I'll wait for Andy's response before I formally switch to a +1 Nick (I am from POI) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
If anyone comments or votes who is from the POI community, could you please identify yourself? We need to be sure there is representation in this vote. I'm abstaining till I see more debate. I see the implication of Martin's point -- POI is pretty insular in Jakarta. But where would POI go if not for Jakarta? WILL On 12/15/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. > > Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the > requirement. > > Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hm, does it pose a real legal threat or is it just a "felt threat" from Andy? I'm +0 for opening. I'm enthusiastic on pushing POI out of Jakarta to remove this restriction. While I agree that POI fits Jakarta theme-wise, this "access restriction" thing feels too much like a wart. Push it to TLP, make Andy chief, wish them farewell. Problem solved. :-) Best regards Henning On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:07 +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > Hi everyone, > > You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on > 27-3-2006" and the outcome > was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. > > The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it > Jakarta once was and it is > time they join the club completely. > > [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. > [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... > > The vote will be open for a week. > > Mvgr, > Martin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy "Save the cheerleader. Save the world." - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On 12/15/06, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: > Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? My understanding is that the advice is from Andy's personal lawyer many moons ago, maybe before POI joined the ASF. From an ASF point of view if someone breaks an NDA on our list or in a commit, then it's their head and not ours. We would respond as quickly as possible once we're aware of the issue by removing reference to that issue (and unless we think it was an honest mistake also yanking the commit rights of the person who broke it). I'm not sure if we'd legally have to do that or not - I don't know how NDAs fit into IP (copyright/trademarks), or if its just a personal agreement between two parties and the NDA breaker is just breaking that contract. I am not a lawyer etc etc, but the above is my understanding and would hold for any of our mailing lists. Public statements seem like an odd thing. There's no official archive of them at the ASF (and they're not made to the ASF), so I doubt they hold any weight or value to the ASF. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
ehh +1 :) Mvgr, Martin Martin van den Bemt wrote: > Hi everyone, > > You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on > 27-3-2006" and the outcome > was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. > > The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it > Jakarta once was and it is > time they join the club completely. > > [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. > [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... > > The vote will be open for a week. > > Mvgr, > Martin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Back when I joined POI, I was told the apache legal team had suggested the requirement. Perhaps one of the older POI committers can supply the original details? Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Which legal team ? Apache legal doesn't know anything about this.. Mvgr, Martin Nick Burch wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: >> The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what >> it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. > > I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have > always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that > they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or > similar. > > So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let > people commit without having made such a public statement. > > Nick > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Martin van den Bemt wrote: The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. I think it was actually a reccomendation from the legal team. We have always asked that anyone contributing code to POI make a statement that they haven't ever seen any Microsoft file format docs under an NDA or similar. So, I'm voing (non binding) [-1], unless legal say it's now OK to let people commit without having made such a public statement. Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] Remove POI svn restrictions.
Hi everyone, You probably think "Hey I have seen a similar vote started by Henri on 27-3-2006" and the outcome was 3 -1 from POI so their SVN is still closed for Jakarta committers. The reasoning behind this is that POI is still trying to stick to what it Jakarta once was and it is time they join the club completely. [+1] Open up POI svn commit access. [-1] Don't open POI svn commit access, because... The vote will be open for a week. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
