On 9 Jul 2024, at 10:29, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:55 AM tison wrote:
>>
>> Now that no objection to using MPMC as an abbreviation, I file this draft
>> [1] so that we can improve the wording and start to spread the word.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/www-site/
On 16 Oct 2018, at 13:26, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
> So, I took a stab at this, Work-In-Progress and what not:
>
> https://icla.live/
Rather neat. I’d practice data-minimalisation right out of the gate though -
as to not burden the ASF with data that becomes a liability.
E.g. drop the phone num
On 21 Feb 2016, at 14:25, Dor Ben Dov wrote:
> Let's say I (company) go the ASF way.
>
> To incubator and later on into TLP.
>
> Does it mean that the license would be in the end only Apache License 2 ? or
> can it still remain for example, lgpl ?
Any and all code the ASF releases/distributes
> On 09 Feb 2015, at 15:08, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> These are all different vehicles for different things.
>
> The SGA is basically a formal code-donation to the ASF. It
> provides deep IP provenance.
>
> A CCLA is a document that sez that a company is aware that its
> employee(s) is/are work
[X] +1 Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation (binding)
Dw*.
*: who is in a - what the hack mood - and thinks that get this code base in a
state where people can start hacking is better than let it bitrot any further.
And fully trust the incubator process to attic the code & jettison the
commun
On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:06, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 07/06/11 11:42, Christian Lippka wrote:
>> Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
>>
>>> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". And
>>> another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of
>>> sedimenta
So code is one thing. Open office does also come with quite a need for build
farms, automated test and so on.
It would be good to understand this early - and understand wether this matters.
I.e. Can normal development continue with the basics (svn, bug tracking,
mailing lists, archives and a de
On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
> ..
> As the trees diverge, it will get harder to give code to you both.
> What if some changes depend on other GPL code?
On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:43, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The expression 'land-grab' in here bothers me.
>
> I understand (if not agree with) the 'deep philosophy justification'
> of the FSF for a particular licensing strategy.
>
> I understand the views of individuals who don't want to benefit
> corp
On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:08, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes
> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to
>>> manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If
>>> conspiracy is right it definitely won't b
On 6 Jun 2011, at 18:00, Ian Lynch wrote:
> what happens. The fact is the software grant is made. My understanding is
> that if the code goes into the incubator it does not even guarantee it will
> emerge as a marketable product.
...
> OTOH it might thrive and take over the desktop office world (I
nd balanced support ecosystem which is far beyond the ASF - where the
free and strong ideological chops of, say, LibreOffice balance commercial
product and support companies.
Hope this helps,
Dw.
--
Dirk-Willem van Gulik
0: I'll be the first to admit that - though arguably in my case it wa
On 6 Jun 2011, at 10:51, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:45 AM, dsh wrote:
>>
>> If IBM has legal concerns in this regards they may involve their own
>> IP and patent attorney stuff IBM-internally.
>
> I really didn't want to participate in this thread, and like Greg wish
> it would e
On 6 Jun 2011, at 09:13, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Am 06.06.2011 09:25, schrieb Greg Stein:
> One of the main topics of the whole discussion regarding the
> OpenOffice.org incubation proposal was and is collaboration with TDF /
> LO. And now the first "initial committer" from IBM in the proposal
>
On Nov 10, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
[ ] Yes, CouchDB is ready to become a top lavel project at the ASF
and the
IPMC will recommend the proposed resolution quoted below to the
Board.
+1, go go gO GO!
Dw.
-
To
On 6 Nov 2008, at 15:11, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I agree with Paul. CouchDB is ready IMO—it meets all the exit criteria
(just having given the talk about graduation at the ASF).
Aye to that !
Dw.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 4 Nov 2008, at 19:02, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...Given that - I'd say that incubation with a handful people or so
at this
stage is, while early and somewhat risky - certainly an option...
I
On 4 Nov 2008, at 14:15, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
I haven't been following CouchDB but a PMC of five seems small - you
only have to loose a couple of people and you're on the verge of not
being a viable project. I took a look through the lists and from what
I can see CouchDB entered incubation with
On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:27 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:42 -0400, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/09/2008, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL
On 13 Aug 2008, at 18:12, Noah Slater wrote:
Hello,
The community has approved a release of Apache CouchDB 0.8.1-
incubating.
Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy we would
now like to
request the approval of the Incubator PMC to make the release.
Release proposal:
On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
Several of our project (Qpid) memebers are legally in a difficult
position
disclosing their employer in Apache world. They have signed a legal
document, in order to be allowed to contribute to Apache, and thus
this is
not a simple prefere
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
J Aaron Farr wrote:
git could be an issue.
Can you explain what the issue is with Git?
Leo already gave a decent explanation.
Basically, it comes down to two aspects:
1) infrastructure support
2)
On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Erik Abele wrote:
Perhaps we need to do something like having the whole community
vote and then taking this as their proposal to the PMC which then
votes as to wether to pass this community advice on.
Yes, we're already doing that it's just very confusing to a
On Jan 31, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
and only the PPMC member votes are binding.
The error is the use of PPMC. It should say that only PMC member
votes
are binding.
But somehow I like the fact that in most cases the vote is much wider
- and I think that this helps foste
+1 !
Dw.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Manuel Mall wrote:
> On the grant form is says: ""Licensor owns or has sufficient
> rights to contribute the software source code". In this case we don't
> have a single Licensor but a group of people. How does the form work in
> such a case as it seems to make the assumption
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
> > the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??
..
> Personally, I would prefer that the AS
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I've talked with the developers of the jabberd2 server [1] about the
> possibility of initiating their Jabber/XMPP server into the ways of
> Apache. They're open to and interested in incubation and would like to
> know if Apache folks might be inter
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> of trade secrets and strictly limits the rights of employers to
> material created by an employee in their own time using their
> materials.
On paper - yes - but national law and case-law shows that as soon as that
material is even remotely in
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Jackrabbit is following the procedures of the original Apache Group
> in adding new committers. We nominate them first on the
> jackrabbit-private mailing list (which includes all of the existing
> Jackrabbit committers and any members who want to he
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Um, sure .. that's one way to make sure my concerns are addressed before
> they're let off the hook ;-).
Good - that increases the likelyhood of survival a lot.
Dw.
-
To unsub
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Phil Steitz wrote:
> +1
+1 - and would be happy to help mentoring this if needed. My main worries
are the overlap with existing xml sig/sec work and existing WS work along
with the various licensing, patents and what not issues. Seeing Dim's on
board alleviates most of the
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> decision, but it effects importing code under the auspices of the
> Foundation, and it isn't unreasonable to have a higher bar.
I'd rather then have an escalation onto a higher bar (sush as a 2/3) or
some deferal to board/members at the next general
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> At 12:51 PM 3/14/2005, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> body, as long as that developer agrees to submit to the decisions of
> the supervisory body. The number of supervised developers should not
..
Bear in mind that in essese that most of
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> What is so special about the number 3? What's wrong with 5 committers? With
> 4? With 2? With 1?
..
> Does "sustainable" necessarily mean 3 or more committers? Is a project with
> a single committer yet consistent committer less viable than a project with
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, thorsten wrote:
> what if incubating mentors would abuse their powers to interfer with the
> normal evolution of Apache incubation projects.
Please report any such issue to the PMC of the incubator; or in private to
any pmc member. If there are any trust issues with the PMC
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Scott Cantor wrote:
> In any case, my thoughts notwithstanding, it's obviously something that
> the people interested in building new Apache WS projects on SAML should
> decide.
Aye - and the board@ is unlikely to do anything significant until at least
that group has reache
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I object to this. And it did not say WILL be royalty-free it said
..
> I object to that as well.
..
> I would like to petition the board for such a statement.
Folks,
Could you toss the board a bone here - i.e. reach consensus what *we* as
develop
38 matches
Mail list logo
