On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 15:39, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
> > All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
> > I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
> > to this change and a
Yeah I'd say it is disturbing, I just wanted to highlight that
the anonymous CVS access is not the only means of getting
sandbox articles. Most of the discussion on this list with
regards to this topic has been "What do we need to do to the
source code to make it legal", judging from what I've re
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
code in there..
Si
On 25 Oct 2002, John Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some of the sandbox code is actually distributed as well.
I'm pretty sure that storing it in a public CVS repo legally is
"distributing". One of the reasons that we (and the XML folks) have
been hunting and deleting jars in CVS.
Stefan
-
Some of the sandbox code is actually distributed as well.
For example jelly is distributed to ibiblio's maven
repository. There's talk of setting up mirrors of this
repository also. I am sure there are others that are also
stored there.
-John K
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:20, Martin van den Bemt
Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
code in there..
The plus if I don't do this, is
I will take care of that..
Mvgr,
Martin
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 01:13, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> >>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> >>> should be fixed.
>
> If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
> ASL version 1.1 on
robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
25/10/2002 07:08:58 AM:
> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> should be fixed.
>
> i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>
> to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the
>>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>>> should be fixed.
If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
Pier
i suppose that really this should be a matter for the jakarta pmc. i have
a feeling that the apache members are very strong about the contents of
public cvs since it exposes them to (possible criminal) liability. how far
should things be allowed to go in the sandbox?
- robert
On Thursday, Octo
At 17:34 24.10.2002 -0400, you wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
Except
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
Except the sandbox is published online in a vi
Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
At 22:08 24.10.2002 +0100, you wrote:
there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files.
13 matches
Mail list logo
