On Dec 24, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
I believe (but I Am Not A Lawyer) that we can use the
term "Java" to describe something on the homepage, but
that it cannot be the title of a project, nor could it
be used as a domain name. Most sourceforge projects
that do so are probably in
Any idea how exactly the java trademark works with respect to our usage of
it?
For example, if we're talking about language based portals/foundries, can
we actually call it the 'Apache Java Portal'? Or some such.
How do Sourceforge get away with:
http://java.foundries.sourceforge.net/ ?
Presum
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
I personally think that the idea of "Commons" should become more
"Virtual" and "Evolutionary" in nature.
if theres ever the case that "xml commons" and "jakarta commons"
could become a shared community, it would produce the following
benefits
Mark
Quoting "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> > Why don't the various commons groups in the ASF just have the AC PMC
> > add things on the A-C site and 'federate' that way? The respective
> > PMCs would still do what they do - oversee the projects - and the AC
> >
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Why don't the various commons groups in the ASF just have the AC PMC
> add things on the A-C site and 'federate' that way? The respective
> PMCs would still do what they do - oversee the projects - and the AC
> PMC can maintain the website.
I don't see why not. That s
Hell ya. We can start this right away. Great idea, Geir.
"Now why didn't I think of that?" :-)
Cheers,
-g
p.s. note that Jakarta acting as a Java-based codebase federation is a
separate matter; the J PMC can deal with that...
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 09:12:34PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
Why don't the various commons groups in the ASF just have the AC PMC
add things on the A-C site and 'federate' that way? The respective
PMCs would still do what they do - oversee the projects - and the AC
PMC can maintain the website.
geir
On Dec 23, 2003, at 4:44 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We started with java.apache.org, but had to toss it for trademark reasons.
Thus, Jakarta was born.
No going back now...
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:44:58PM -0600, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Perhaps this is a good reason to revive the java.apache.org site. This
> would allow jakarta to maintain a separa
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> I personally think that the idea of "Commons" should become more
> "Virtual" and "Evolutionary" in nature.
> if theres ever the case that "xml commons" and "jakarta commons"
> could become a shared community, it would produce the following
> benefits
Mark, what you are s
Hello all,
The ultimate goal of any "Commons" is to develop a shared codebase of
components that are not large enough to be maintained on their own, and
reduce "replication of functionality" in separate projects. This is not
only "integral" to a healthy developing codebase at Apache, it is
nec
The shortfall with this idea is that most projects that have established
thier own TLP are also maintaining thier own virtual host name.
maven.apache.org
ant.apache.org
cocoon.apache.org
how would these relate to java.apache.org? Do they drop thier
indepenendent host names for
java.apache.org/m
Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Perhaps this is a good reason to revive the java.apache.org site.
You mean "java(tm).apache.org"? :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PR
Quoting David Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "The subproject shall create and maintain packages written in the Java
> > > language, intended for use in server-related development, and designed
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "The subproject shall create and maintain packages
> written in the Java
> > language, intended for use in server-related
> development, and designed to
> > be used independently of any larger produ
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "The subproject shall create and maintain packages
> written in the Java
> > language, intended for use in server-related
> development, and designed to
> > be used independently of any larger produ
"Saying Jakarta => Java"
Yep, that is what I meant.
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 16:33
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: RE: What is Jakarta Commons?
>
>
27;t going to go very far.
--
Martin Cooper
>
> Gary
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 14:44
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: What is Jakarta Commo
From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "The subproject shall create and maintain packages written in the Java
> language, intended for use in server-related development, and designed to
> be used independently of any larger product or framework."
>
> in what way is anything in j-c "specifica
I don't follow.
The current Jakarta Commons charter reads (under "scope of the
subproject"):
"The subproject shall create and maintain packages written in the Java
language, intended for use in server-related development, and designed to
be used independently of any larger product or framework."
Howdy,
>> My preferred short definition of J-C is:
>> 'creating and maintaining small-scale, reusable, utility components
>written
>> in Java'
>>
>> Is this definition OK? Any comments?
>
>This pretty much boots Daemon out of J-C, which would be IMHO would be
a
>shame. Almost of the (supported)
"Stephen Colebourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jakarta is having trouble redefining what is truly stands for. I had hoped
> that in Jakarta-Commons we knew. However, since its specifically different
> to what is in the charter, I guess we should decide. And then
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Dirk Verbeeck wrote:
> > My preferred short definition of J-C is:
> > 'creating and maintaining small-scale, reusable, utility components written
> > in Java'
>
> Sounds OK, we should also update the commons homepage, there are also
> a couple of outdated statements on that
My preferred short definition of J-C is:
'creating and maintaining small-scale, reusable, utility components written
in Java'
Sounds OK, we should also update the commons homepage, there are also
a couple of outdated statements on that page.
-- Dirk
23 matches
Mail list logo
