On Jan 25, 2008 3:02 AM, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I was referring to whether it would
> be acceptable for him to give "written approval" as a JIRA comment...
I'd say yes, but to be sure it'd be better to check with
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Bertrand
-
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I im
i've been working on some scripts along the lines discussed before
[1]. they still need some tuning, documenting and i have some more
glue in mind but i hope that the concepts are clear enough now
when the mirrors sync, (boring) example output for today are in [2]
the txt is for emailing, the html
On 24/01/2008, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi sebb
>
> Thank you for the detailed review.
>
> Can you tell me what you mean by
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think the NOTICE files in the art
Hi all,
in an effort of being accepted for incubation, at Tiles we decided to
rename the previous posted Dimensions project to Kaolin. I modified
the proposal accordingly:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KaolinProposal
We are still waiting for a Champion to help us entering the incubation process
Hi sebb
Thank you for the detailed review.
Can you tell me what you mean by
On Jan 24, 2008 4:57 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
> > distributed are OK.
>
> Surely the
On 24/01/2008, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
> distributed are OK.
Surely the archive bundles are also distributed?
==
There are some discrepancies in the jar files covered by the LICENSE
file - the names mentioned in the
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> The legal committee has previously been tasked with a "fork" FAQ
> that would cover this and the PRC team is currently working on a
> "trademarks" FAQ that should also cover this.
And this is neither of those groups, nor have those other tasks been completed.
FWIW, your cla
Michael Wechner wrote:
> >If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
> >create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
> >be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
> >do so.
> believing you that there is no legal requir
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a c
Michael Wechner wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
If the fork wishes to do more than patch up the original or wishes to
create its own identity unique from the Apache original, then it would
be wise to rename the packages, but there is no legal requirement to
do so.
believing you that there is n
Confirm that we were past the legal hurdles. Community was the issue
here with TSIK.
thanks,
dims
On Jan 23, 2008 1:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know anything about the legal side, but it would seem to me to
> > be quite unacceptable to publish new releases with o
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a committer of the proje
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When forking Apache licensed code, one does _not_ need to change the
>> package name, or anything else in the source code. One arguably
>> shouldn't then re-publish the binaries or source as "Apache Foo" [1], but
>> the code itself can use the sam
I think the NOTICE files in the artifacts that are actually being
distributed are OK. The ${pom.name} is changed by the build process so the
generated artifact has the proper name, for example, the jar built for
wsdl2java ends up with a NOTICE file containing "Apache Tuscany SCA
WSDL2Java Tool", se
Hi Richard,
IIUC, yes, the owner of the donated code needs to update the source
code. Probably you could send some patch to him and he could apply
the patch. When I import AsyncWeb, I just did it by myself because I
was a committer of the project.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
HTH,
17 matches
Mail list logo