On Mar 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
>>> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote:
>> I am following all these discussions for doing a first release of
>> Apache Stanbol (incubating) but get totally confused. According to
>>
>> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutua
Clutch also has a list of "Other Issues":
http://incubator.apache.org/clutch.html#other
It is mainly where Clutch is trying to help with
the post-graduation steps. There are some other things
listed for current incubation podlings.
Sure, some of these items are where projects have
recently gradua
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> I prefer to put our license in the file and then, at the bottom, refer
>> to a list of other licenses per dependency (if included in this package),
>> wherein the dependency licenses are in separate
On 29 March 2012 18:43, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
>> the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
>> permissive license), but the key here
On Mar 29, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Personally, I agree with Roy. Perhaps it might seem a little odd to include
> the text of e.g. the GPLv2 in one of our LICENSE files (alongside a more
> permissive license), but the key here is that it is both legally OK for us to
> distribute
On Mar 29, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Fabian Christ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding :
>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
The LICENSE file includes ref
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Christ
wrote:
> Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding :
>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
The LICENSE file includes referenc
On 29 March 2012 15:09, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2012, at 15:07 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting
>> wrote:
>>> ...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
>>> understand his point correctly, *no* binary dependenci
Le 3/29/12 3:41 PM, Daniel Shahaf a écrit :
Jukka Zitting wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:41:02 +0200:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
has all but abandoned is far beyond my imagined threshold of
rea
On Mar 29, 2012, at 15:07 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>> ...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
>> understand his point correctly, *no* binary dependencies are
>> acceptable within a source tar ball.
Let's s
Hi,
Am 26. März 2012 17:20 schrieb Roy T. Fielding :
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe wrote:
>>> The LICENSE file includes references to lots of jars that are dual
>>> licensed under CDDL
Jukka Zitting wrote on Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 14:41:02 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> > Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
> > has all but abandoned is far beyond my imagined threshold of
> > reasonable on the scale. Do you a
I mentioned this in another note but I'll repeat here to use your example.
Where the binaries do live in a Maven repo and are versioned there is less of
an issue and it becomes a convenience. A real challenge is what to do if your
taking a "stable" copy of a project that doesn't have a version
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> ...It seems like Roy is much more categorical about this. Assuming I
> understand his point correctly, *no* binary dependencies are
> acceptable within a source tarball.
>
> What I don't quite (yet) understand is how a reference like
> "junit
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Shipping a set of CDDL jars out of some java.net projects that oracle
> has all but abandoned is far beyond my imagined threshold of
> reasonable on the scale. Do you actually see that differently?
Agreed. These are exactly the kinds of qu
16 matches
Mail list logo
