Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Martin Cooper
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 from me. > > > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, > its > > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a > > single LI

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Craig L Russell
Hi Matthieu, On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Matthieu Riou wrote: I'd rather have all the specific licenses each in there file reproduced side by side with the library the license is applied on (with similar namings, i.e. dom4j-1.3.LICENSE) and a simple pointer in the main LICENSE file ("licenses

Re: Following general@

2007-07-31 Thread Roland Weber
> "Following general@" isn't a great effort. The last 2 weeks we are looking at > ~10-12 messages a day on average. And if one is really short on time, which > happens to all of us, it is fairly easy to skip a couple of threads... I found that subscribing to a digest instead of the list itself m

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 00:26, Matthieu Riou wrote: > I've seen the documentation as well but couldn't find the justification > behind it. I think it relates to Legal Folks like single files, which can be read as a Word Document once(!) and then poked around inside. Only developers are fond

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Matthieu Riou
On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > +1 from me. > > > > > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, > > > its > > > preferred

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Martijn Dashorst
I like the idea of the license maven artifact. It takes quite some effort in determining the actual license of any dependency (I've been on a license hunt myself several times). Having the license published in the repository next to the (jar) artifact (and included in the artifacts META-INF folder)

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread ant elder
On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 from me. > > > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, > > its > > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a > > single

Re: All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Guillaume Nodet
I must agree about the nightmare. Including separate files is much easier and could be automated by maven or any other build tool much more easily... On 7/31/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 from me. > > > > Some of the same

All licenses in a single file [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release]

2007-07-31 Thread Matthieu Riou
On 7/31/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 from me. > > Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its > preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a > single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into > different >

Re: [VOTE] Publish the Woden M7b release

2007-07-31 Thread ant elder
+1 from me. Some of the same comments on the previous M7a release still apply, eg, its preferred to have a separate DISCLAIMER file, having all licenses in a single LICENSE file, and have src and binary distro's unpack into different folders. ...ant On 7/30/07, Graham Turrell (gmail) <[EMAIL

Re: Map of the ASF land?

2007-07-31 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Monday 30 July 2007 15:41, Gilles Scokart wrote: > Did you like the idea?  Are there people here wanting to collaborate > on it?  What does the mentors here advices for the next steps? Not that *I* would spend my time on making this a reality, but I would enjoy the end result... I think this

Re: Software grant for CXF

2007-07-31 Thread Daniel Kulp
Thanks Robert, I finally managed to prod one of our mentors into getting the grant form added to: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ We'll start the rest of the steps now that that has been done and we can start filling in the check box dates and such. Thanks! Dan On Wednesday 25 Jul

Re: [VOTE][doc] Promote http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html

2007-07-31 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
i count: +1 robertburrelldonkin (*) +1 Yoav Shapira (*) +1 Guillaume Nodet +1 Martijn Dashorst +1 Matthieu Riou +1 Craig L Russell (*) +1 Niclas Hedhman(*) unless someone jumps in with a correction, i will proceed - robert - To

Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Tuscany SDO Java 1.0-incubating

2007-07-31 Thread Robert Burrell Donkin
On 7/29/07, kelvin goodson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Tuscany project requests permission of the IPMC to release the SDO > Java 1.0-incubating release. > The tuscany-dev list vote passed with 5+1s (2 IPMC binding), see ref [0] below > The release candidate RC3 for Tuscany Java SDO archive dis