- Original Message
> From: Niclas Hedhman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 1:03:51 AM
> Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was: Re:
> Publishing api docs for Subversion)
>
> On Tue, Dec 8
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> this is also the case for Nightly Builds, accessible by the
> public; Legally they are "publishing to the public" (i.e. opposite of
> 'for private use') and bound by licenses and agreements.
> And finally, from Copyright law perspective, you
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
> and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but
"self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted materia
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
>> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
>
> No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
> steps) and a p
uggest his words be considered with a big fat IMHO around
them.
- Original Message
> From: William A. Rowe Jr.
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 12:29:42 AM
> Subject: Re: How documentation != code, and how to "do" policy (was:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> It's fine to make nightly builds available, including of documentation. All
> I'm suggesting is that, just as nightly builds should not be linked to from
> the general download page, nightly documentation should not be linked to
> from the ge
Doug Cutting wrote:
> In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order
I have not objected to anything.
Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb "object" in a prior message:
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
Niall Pemberton wrote:
You're taking a
policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to
something it wasn't intended to cover.
Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases
doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the
same copyright
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>> So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
>> convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
>> community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
>> them mo
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's
really no
Hey hey,
I wasn't going to say anything but since this is dragging on...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Would we permit someone to mirror other files from trunk on the website?
Yes, definitely. Most projects publish their websites by pushing files
into SVN. Many projects
12 matches
Mail list logo
