Thx Mohammad!
We would have some more releases ready if the legal status of the
plugins is clear.
I hope we can resolve it soon.
Sebastian
2012/9/18 Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com:
Hi...
From all the replies we got so far I don't see any legal concerns
and hence I take my
Hi...
From all the replies we got so far I don't see any legal concerns
and hence I take my question/concern back.
In either way, keep the good work OpenMeetings ;)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:52 PM, dsh daniel.hais...@gmail.com wrote:
Well I still opt to use Meta descriptors such as Maven
On 14 September 2012 13:57, Alexei Fedotov alexei.fedo...@gmail.com wrote:
The most useful file containing the project classpath is only formatted
automatically, it cannot be generated without project-specific knowledge.
There is no techical problem to drop these files, yet developers who
On 14 September 2012 17:53, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like
these?
These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they can't be
licensed.
Well I still opt to use Meta descriptors such as Maven POMs or CMake
(probably only applicable for native projects) files in such cases
which would allow to generate Eclipse/IDE you name it specific files
once the sources has been obtained.
Cheers
Daniel
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:22 PM, sebb
Hi Alexei...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
alexei.fedo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Mohammad, thank you for the review.
Eclipse can be considered as an alternative build system, so these files
are like build.xml files. Why not to keep them in release?
14.09.2012 3:46
On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
alexei.fedo...@gmail.com wrote:
14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь Mohammad Nour El-Din mn...@apache.org
написал:
One minor note:
- In [1] I noticed files related to
Hi Marcel...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Marcel Offermans
marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl wrote:
On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
alexei.fedo...@gmail.com wrote:
14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь
@Mohammad: And btw, in reference to that big (blue) company, I'd say
your statement is hearsay and needs to be proofed. For instance why is
that very big (blue) company adding their own, proprietary license
header to such generated files and in one way or another even Java
files are
The more practical and pragmatic question to pose is: why would you
want to add license headers to generated files. You would have to take
care of that they won't disappear each time the file (e.g. .classpath)
is getting re-generated. Again from a practical point of view a
mentoring suggestion
Hi Daniel...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM, dsh daniel.hais...@gmail.com wrote:
@Mohammad: And btw, in reference to that big (blue) company, I'd say
your statement is hearsay and needs to be proofed. For instance why is
that very big (blue) company adding their own, proprietary license
On Sep 14, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din nour.moham...@gmail.com
wrote:
But can we add ASL headers to files which are defined and considered
to be, even structure wise (please correct me if I am wrong), under
the license of Eclipse ?
If they are build artifacts (like stuff
The most useful file containing the project classpath is only formatted
automatically, it cannot be generated without project-specific knowledge.
There is no techical problem to drop these files, yet developers who
download our source release loose a useful code navigation tool without
these
Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like these?
These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they can't be
licensed. And, even it were otherwise, the notices at the top of the
tree are sufficient.
Hi Benson...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like
these?
These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din mn...@apache.org wrote:
I checked:
- Mailing lists and from it the community looks active to a good
extent both on the users and developers lists
- Last report (June 2012) they were in the 'No Release' group of
podlings but they
Hi
I checked:
- Mailing lists and from it the community looks active to a good
extent both on the users and developers lists
- Last report (June 2012) they were in the 'No Release' group of
podlings but they managed to get a release out
- Their progress is not that fast but it is stable and
Hello Mohammad, thank you for the review.
Eclipse can be considered as an alternative build system, so these files
are like build.xml files. Why not to keep them in release?
14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь Mohammad Nour El-Din mn...@apache.org
написал:
Hi
I checked:
- Mailing lists and from
18 matches
Mail list logo
