Moving this[1] to general@
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:55 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Tim Williams wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>> I've included references inline for your convenience. I'll once again
>> [strongly] suggest you guys remove that artifact.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --tim
>>
Tim, one of the things we're trying to teach podlings is how to handle
disputes and resolve problems in a happy respectful manner. You've out
of the blue come on to their dev list without introducing yourself
demanding that something that happened nearly two years ago be undone.
Its a testament to
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Tim, one of the things we're trying to teach podlings is how to handle
> disputes and resolve problems in a happy respectful manner. You've out
> of the blue come on to their dev list without introducing yourself
> demanding that something that h
On 15 September 2013 14:16, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> Tim, one of the things we're trying to teach podlings is how to handle
>> disputes and resolve problems in a happy respectful manner. You've out
>> of the blue come on to their dev list without
Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect,
lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
...ant
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:56 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 15 September 2013 14:16, Tim Williams wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>> Tim,
Thank you Elder for filing the LEGAL-178. Tim, the link provided is for
source file headers and reference to Apache distribution of source code
tarball. We will wait for LEGAL-178 to be resolved to react. This implies
that Apache OpenOffice is also not doing the right thing. OpenOffice has
its
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Thank you Elder for filing the LEGAL-178. Tim, the link provided is for
> source file headers and reference to Apache distribution of source code
> tarball. We will wait for LEGAL-178 to be resolved to react. This implies
> that Apache OpenOff
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> As Tim and Luciano have already stated, artifacts which were not voted on
> by
> the IPMC cannot continue to be distributed though our channels.
>
Is that actually the case? AIUI the ASF only releases open source code. We
vote on the sou
Agreed. Convenience binaries have always been distributed on our mirrors.
Only the corresponding source tarball requires a vote.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 19, 2013, at 2:40 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>
>
>> As Tim and Luciano have alr
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:40 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Marvin Humphrey >wrote:
>
>
> > As Tim and Luciano have already stated, artifacts which were not voted on
> > by
> > the IPMC cannot continue to be distributed though our channels.
> >
>
>
> Is that actually th
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Joseph Schaefer
wrote:
> Agreed. Convenience binaries have always been distributed on our mirrors.
> Only the corresponding source tarball requires a vote.
I suppose this thread has clarified what level of quality our users have a
right to expect from "convenien
If you have concerns about Apache OpenOffice it is no longer incubating. If you
will contact the project on its lists with a concrete example.
Otherwise to my knowledge LICENSE and NOTICES are correct at an appropriate
level.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 18, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Eric
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, ant elder wrote:
> Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect,
> lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
To close the loop, LEGAL-178 has been resolved with a determination that it's
up to the Incubator PMC whether to lea
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, ant elder wrote:
> > Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect,
> > lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
>
> To close the loop, LEGAL-178 has been resolved wi
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> Thanks for the summary Marvin, how about we take the chance to update our
> policy/documentation to clarify the social norm regarding placement of
> LICENSE/NOTICE in the top level of a distribution but also clarify that,
> any artifact b
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Luciano Resende
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the summary Marvin, how about we take the chance to update
> our
> > policy/documentation to clarify the social norm regarding placement of
> > LICENSE/NOTICE in t
I closed LEGAL-178 with the resolution "Not A Problem", which is quite
different to a resolution of "Fixed" or "Resolved" or "Answered".
>From my investigation, things like the text of the AL and various posts in
the mailing lists over the years answered the question to my satisfaction.
I doubt ev
On 24 September 2013 10:05, ant elder wrote:
> I closed LEGAL-178 with the resolution "Not A Problem", which is quite
> different to a resolution of "Fixed" or "Resolved" or "Answered".
>
> From my investigation, things like the text of the AL and various posts in
> the mailing lists over the year
Hi Luciano,
2013/9/24 Luciano Resende :
> Is there any written policy that states that ? I have never heard that the
> ASF can't have binary artifacts as official releases ?
It's because "Apache releases open source and ONLY open source." [1]
to quote Roy.
[1] http://markmail.org/message/yzetzkh
19 matches
Mail list logo
