Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ??
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Joshua.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James Mitchell wrote:
I am begging you!! DO NOT put their logo or link on our (yes,
OUR) web site. You can't even imagine what the media will do with this if
you do. God help us all.
You are exagerating to the extreme.
Go to google and count how many media
Please stop copying board on every message.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, James Mitchell wrote:
How do you propose we do that? How do you define large segment of our
users?
My email has nothing to do with your complaint. I am talking purely about
the technical issue of people being unable to download
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Brian. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
Beyond that, I'm suspecting that a lot of the TODOs are going to be
related to the social issues of getting folks to start switching over.
And a few security issues. This was discussed a while back on
infrastructure, but I don't remember all
I think someone is working on an implimentation guide for the new license.
Could you please include and answer to this question:
Now that the new license can be explicitly applied to documentation,
should we include the
Copyright [] [name of copyright owner]
Licensed under the Apache
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Rob Oxspring wrote:
Right then, I don't really want to start another round of endless
discussions so I'll try to keep this short and to the point. Do people want
the newsletter to continue? If so then I'm happy to edit the Oct/Nov issue
with no promises to tackle
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
1. website (www.apache.org/ site module) maintenance
and improvements/suggestions of userfriendliness of each $tlp sites.
I believe the website needs to be ultimately controlled by the infrastructure
committee. We used to have a separate list
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Nope. I have to resign.
Well, thanks for your contribution Tetsuya. I think it is a worthwhile
project, and I hope you reconsider or someone picks it up.
I do believe that there have been some people getting a little too picky
about policies. In
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
long ago, when the original httpd announce@apache.org got
repurposed into a general announcement list, did we say
anything about what subscribers could expect? do we say
anything about it now on the page where people learn about
the lists?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Rich Bowen wrote:
mailing lists. I don't get the sense that he does this in order that the
world will recognize him and adulate him as a hero. (Joshua, please
correct me if I'm wrong ;-)
Personally, I'm just in it for the money.
Joshua.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Ahhh. Now, there are no *ASF members* in Japan (Maybe, this goes for
other Asian countries), so the things can be easily inconsistent.
# The only *Japanese-native* fellow (and ASF member) is now in the USA,
# I've heard.
In such a situation, we
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not on the AC 2003 committee.
However, I think that the organizers would agree that advertising AC
US 2003 will contribute to its success.
Thus, I urge all ASF members as well committers to add a prominent
icon to their
clarified this, which might have been part
of the problem. I just hoped people would figure out by example.
Joshua.
--
Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail
after
a while.
Joshua.
--
Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Thom May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *still* don't think that announce@ is an appropriate list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would seem to me to be the most appropriate address,
and if people agree I will set up the list ASAP.
... This fact means that
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Conor MacNeill wrote:
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
+1. I see nothing wrong with the plan. Hopefully Ant can be made smart
enough to pull the jars down from mirrors, too.
Patches always welcome, Brian :-)
The mirror CGI script should be able to handle this fairly
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Please explain why you find this pattern 'repugnant' on a mail list, but
you don't on a CVS repository.
Since I promised I had finished arguing this, I replied privately.
Joshua.
Ben Hyde said:
Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to
think of
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that
list is not an option.
The fact that
[This actually belongs to the Open Community thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Oh
well.]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here;
and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in
discussions
21 matches
Mail list logo
