On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 08:08, Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
> > You are right about that, and I think that ultimately could prevent it
> from
> > happening
>
> Can you elaborate?
>
> Suppose Apache Bicycle project takes the current Elm code in a source
> form and evolves it.
> It should be pretty much
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 11:12, Justin Mclean wrote:
> The BSD license is compatible with the Apache license, so there are no
> license or legal issues here. However in general, the ASF likes to play
> nice with other communities and not have hostile forks. You would need to
> come up with a good ca
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 15:59, Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
> See https://dev.to/kspeakman/elm-019-broke-us--khn ,
> https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/native-code-in-0-19/826
Yes, this did happen... but I would also qualify it by adding that it
should have been very clear that the kernel interfaces ar
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 at 13:32, PJ Fanning wrote:
> One thing to be aware of is that the license on Elm Compiler is BSD
> 3-clause license [1]. Generally speaking, the ASF would require the
> code to be granted to the foundation, including permission to change
> over to the Apache 2 license. In a co
I don't mean to be secretive so I shall clarify things for you. I have
provided consultancy to JPMC and this did relate to Qpid, particularly
helping some of their teams to get set up with it. However, I have never
been covered by a corporate CLA but signed it as an individual contributor.
This was
Hi Daniel,
Don't forget about me. I am a currently active Qpid committer and not
an employee of either RedHat
or JPMC. I am an independent consultant who operates through a company
called The Badger Sett Ltd.
and all my contributions to Qpid thus far have been completely
'legally' independent of t
