I guess its a murky area legally - making similar APIs using
documentation as a guide. e.g. its quite striking how many extremely
similar APIs are in .Net and Mono to the JDK.
FWIW there's a current practice to get around Sun's bizarre licensing
on various Java/J2EE APIs - folks type in their
IANAL, but I believe Carl has volunteered to get legal clarifications on
any points you consider nebulous. I agree with you that the terms are
well intentioned, and intention is often the critical issue. The
objective of those who were in involved in the creation of this spec
(though I am not
On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Fremantle wrote:
Carl
I think some of the team have a good point on the IP and licensing
issues. One issue that is very frustrating from an Apache perspective
is if there are some committers involved in the spec process, and
other
On 7/19/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was assuming that standard bodies dictate the license to a large
extent, and given that those have caused trouble in the past the idea
of a new project with that still undefined is a worry. The term
standards body is a mental flag :)
I asked
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 22:33 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Sahan,
Thank you for your interest, do you mind if we do a brief call
(or email...or discuss right here on the list -- whatever your preference)
to understand
what your interest is and what or where you are
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's also clear at least to me that they don't want any input or
rather interference in matters technical either (at least learn
from our mistakes!), at least till the current merger is done by
which time its too late to align some of the efforts with ongoing
work in
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
It's pretty clear from all the conversations during Apachecon that
folks don't believe in people who are wearing their Apache hats or
at least us when we wear one.
Let's be fair about it. Without naming names, we all know that the same
concern Dims raises above
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 21:28 -0400, Dan Diephouse wrote:
+1 Noel. I'd like to join the PPMC too as an interested party observer.
I will poke my nose in as a mentor when possible but don't have the
cycles to commit to it.
Hi Sanjiva,
I'm confused, you're saying you don't have the time to
Sanjiva,
List is fine / no issues there - and I know anyone can join the project
once accepted if
they show contribution and understanding of the project. I have however
been lead to
believe that it is fine to discuss where people want to contribute and
am interested in
discussing each
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:12 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 22:33 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Carl Trieloff wrote:
Sahan,
Thank you for your interest, do you mind if we do a brief call
(or email...or discuss right here on the list -- whatever your
preference)
to
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
In general, you should not have to ask what someone who's already an ASF
committer what his/her interest is in joining an incubator project. In
this particular case isn't the relationship/interest abundantly clear?
In the php project (which is strikingly similar in
(resent - mail seems to have been dropped)
Sanjiva,
List is fine / no issues there - and I know anyone can join the project
once accepted if
they show contribution and understanding of the project. I have however
been lead to
believe that it is fine to discuss where people want to contribute
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a name
On 7/20/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
one of the checkboxes on the status page says:
Give all Mentors access to all incubator SVN modules (to be
done by PMC chair).
so it seems they are required to have access whether the rest
of the committers
Brian McCallister wrote:
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
In general, you should not have to ask what someone who's already
an ASF committer what his/her interest is in joining an incubator
project. In this particular case isn't the relationship/interest
abundantly clear?
That said I want
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
i've run into a problem. [Roles_and_Responsibilities.html] is not
consistent with [Incubation_Policy.html]
roles states champions can be officers or members whereas policy
implies only members.
From my
Removed discursive material repeated elsewhere from policy
--
Key: INCUBATOR-36
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-36
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Improvement
i've been working on tidying up the policy document by removing discursive
material into supporting document and trying to leave just the actual
policies with only a little linking prose. my intention is that these
changes should be policy neutral so please jump in if any of these overstep
just
On 7/20/06, Cliff Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
If anyone has actually read this far,
i have
thanks for indulging my thoughts
on this.
and thanks for taking the time to draft such a comprehensive analysis of the
space
- robert
Roy
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is giving a person the right to
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to
be making
sure that a company
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-28?page=all ]
Robert Burrell Donkin closed INCUBATOR-28.
--
Resolution: Fixed
Looks good :-)
Commited to http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/samples/site/
Many Thanks
Robert
Add
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-27?page=comments#action_12422510
]
Robert Burrell Donkin commented on INCUBATOR-27:
Good question but I don't have an answer. Legal-discuss sounds like to a good
place to start
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in
Sure, and that is up to the proposer. If the proposal does not gain
sufficient support from Apache because of that fact, that's life.
Nevertheless, it is wrong for us to force a new podling to accept
arbitrary committers just because they happen to have been proposed
as an incubator podling.
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-27?page=comments#action_12422514
]
Matthias Weßendorf commented on INCUBATOR-27:
-
Ok robert,
thanks for the feedback; I'll ping them.
Regards,
Matthias
Overhaul the Check
Robert,
I mailed an email to the legal-discuss list. I'll give you all an
update here, what the result of the *trademark overhaul* issue is.
-Matthias
[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-27
On 7/7/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we all can work a bit on
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project
can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open
or be supplanted.
In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks
in the USPTO with 329 applications, most of them live and at least
one registered
On 7/20/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, experience has shown that an effective open source project
can cause a previously closed standard to be forced into the open
or be supplanted.
+1
In any case, BLAZE is one of the more over-registered trademarks
in the USPTO with 329
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Sanjiva,
List is fine / no issues there - and I know anyone can join the project
once accepted if they show contribution and understanding of the
project. I have however been lead to believe that it is fine to
discuss where people
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe it is
^^
This is the documented practice; see
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is kind of like getting advice at a barn-raising from some bystander
who isn't willing to lend a hand. The advice will be heard for about
five minutes, after which the people doing the work will simply
34 matches
Mail list logo
