On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> ...
>> >
>> > I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
>> > what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
>> > Category B software in their repositories (feel free
>> > to prove me
--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
...
>
> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
> modified
> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out.
> > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache
> > policies and a good reason to avoid carr
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
>> modified
>> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
>> >
>> > Thank you for pointing this out.
>> > This sounds pretty much un
--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
...
>
> If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
> stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
> incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed
> documentation. Ditto for the wiki. Ditto for extensions site.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
>> stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
>> incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed
>>
Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified
files available electronically for 12 months.
Thank you for pointing this out.
This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache policies
Anyway this could be solved by the MPL 2
On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
...
> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member
> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the internal
o
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member
>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>
> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
> are b
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member
>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>
> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We
> are b
On 12 January 2012 19:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> ...
...
>> I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can
>> state what the policy issue is. I simply don't see any
>> problem here. We're not including category-b source code
>> in our release,
On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member
>>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross.
>>
>> This is not correct.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member
>>
On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> wrote:
On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote:
...
> You were looking
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 19:2
On 13 January 2012 00:23, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> wrote:
On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ros
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 00:23, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 23:5
Hi,
--- Gio 12/1/12, Andrea Pescetti ha scritto:
...
> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
> modified
> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
> > Thank you for pointing this out.
> > This sounds pretty muc
On 12.01.2012 20:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
...
If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed
documentation. Ditto for th
On 1/12/12 9:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
...
If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website
stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in
incompatible licenses, in the form of G
On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> It was said in reply to the VP Legal
>> affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
>> discouraged / not allowed."
>>
>
> You are putting words in Sam's mouth. The topic
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> It was said in reply to the VP Legal
>>> affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
>>> discouraged / not allowed
On 13.01.2012 13:31, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
It was said in reply to the VP Legal
affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
d
On 13 January 2012 12:31, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> wrote:
It was said in reply to the VP Legal
affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in S
to my knowledge, which is
why we've had GPL code amongst other code in there.
- Original Message -
> From: Ross Gardler
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libra
t;
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Ross Gardler
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>>
>> On 13 January 2012 12:31, Rob Weir
--- Ven 13/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
>
> that is a very important point and we should keep the
> practical relevance in mind.
>
> I normally build with --with-dmake-url to test this because
> it is currently very important for people who wants to start
> building AOO on their own. As l
--- Ven 13/1/12, Andre Fischer ha scritto:
...
> >
> > I think the issue is very easy to resolve: drop the
> > tarballs from SVN and provide sufficient instructions
> > so that the people doing the builds can download the
> > tarballs themselves: we even have nice "fetch_tarball.sh"
> > script t
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 12:31, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> It was said in reply to
On 13 January 2012 14:43, Rob Weir wrote:
...
> If I were on the IPMC, and AOO came up for graduation, I wouldn't be
> too concerned out the MPL license category being in SVN, so long as
> the releases were in policy and so long as the PPMC could demonstrate
> how they are addressing good practi
Hello;
--- Ven 13/1/12, Joe Schaefer ha scritto:
> It's certainly an edge case, and I'm not completely convinced
> that I agree with you about it Ross. The ASF's position
> on svn distributions is that you can put anything in there
> that you like, provided we have the legal authority to
> redi
y will agree with.
Good luck.
>
> From: Pedro Giffuni
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 9:52 AM
>Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>
>Hello;
>
>--- Ven 13/1/
--- Ven 13/1/12, Ross Gardler ha scritto:
...
>
> Can someone please explain why it is necessary to have the
> code here
> at all? Why is it not pulled from the upstream project?
>
It is there only for convenience: to make it easier to fetch
and maintain.
I think it's pretty clear we don't st
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 14:43, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> If I were on the IPMC, and AOO came up for graduation, I wouldn't be
>> too concerned out the MPL license category being in SVN, so long as
>> the releases were in policy and so long as t
If you are asking me (and only me);
--- Ven 13/1/12, Joe Schaefer ha scritto:
> Why hasn't there been a LEGAL jira
> issue
> filed about this at this point? As I said
> it's a gray area that I'm certain the IPMC
> has no existing governing policy on, and I'm also
> certain that your mentors wil
to object, especially
not if they'd passed the issue off
to LEGAL and didn't receive a negative
response.
>
> From: Pedro Giffuni
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:08 AM
>Subject: Re:
t, especially
> not if they'd passed the issue off
> to LEGAL and didn't receive a negative
> response.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Pedro Giffuni
> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> >Sent: Friday, Januar
On 1/13/12 3:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Ven 13/1/12, Andre Fischer ha scritto:
...
I think the issue is very easy to resolve: drop the
tarballs from SVN and provide sufficient instructions
so that the people doing the builds can download the
tarballs themselves: we even have nice "fetch
oviding that opinion.
>
> From: Jürgen Schmidt
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>
>On 1/13/12 3:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
&g
On 13.01.2012 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
For what it is worth, I agree with Joe here. The question is whether there
is a valid reason to keep them here.
I don't know if the reasons are valid. We are trying to find a
pragmatical solution that is a good compromise for the different
requiremen
On 13.01.2012 15:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Ven 13/1/12, Ross Gardler ha scritto:
...
Can someone please explain why it is necessary to have the
code here
at all? Why is it not pulled from the upstream project?
It is there only for convenience: to make it easier to fetch
and maintain.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jan 13, 2012 4:02 PM, "Andre Fischer" wrote:
>
>
> On 13.01.2012 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> For what it is worth, I agree with Joe here. The question is whether
there
>> is a valid reason to keep them here.
>
>
> I don't know
>
> From: Andre Fischer
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:09 AM
>Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>
>
>
>On 13.01.2012 15:59, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>
- Original Message -
> From: Ross Gardler
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Jan 13, 2012 4:02 PM, "Andre Fischer" wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.01.2012 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I agree with Joe here. The question is whether
>
--- Ven 13/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
...
>
> well that is a valid point that comes into my mind as well
> when I have read the mails and thought a little bit longer.
>
> If that is the only reason than we can move it besides
> trunk. But that is a technical solution only and it doesn't
> s
that circumstance
over what appears to be a simple disagreement.
- Original Message -
> From: Pedro Giffuni
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>
&g
Hello Joe;
--- Ven 13/1/12, Joe Schaefer ha scritto:
> Please do not step down from the PPMC
> Pedro,
> you have done good work here and it is very important
> that the PPMC consist of such people going forward.
>
>
> Creating a class of active committers who are not
> on the PPMC will not hel
On 13 January 2012 16:28, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Jan 13, 2012 4:02 PM, "Andre Fischer" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13.01.2012 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
For what it is w
essage -
>> From: Pedro Giffuni
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>>
>> --- Ven 13/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
>> ...
&
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 16:28, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>>> On Jan 13, 2012 4:02 PM, "Andre Fischer" wrote:
On
Am Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 schrieb Pedro Giffuni :
> --- Ven 13/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> well that is a valid point that comes into my mind as well
>> when I have read the mails and thought a little bit longer.
>>
>> If that is the only reason than we can move it besides
>> tru
On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir wrote:
> You are trying to argue the necessity point.
I'm not arguing any point. I'm asking questions so that I might
understand what the sticking point is.
Ross
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> You are trying to argue the necessity point.
>
> I'm not arguing any point. I'm asking questions so that I might
> understand what the sticking point is.
>
OK. You'll understand this better if
Am Freitag, 13. Januar 2012 schrieb Rob Weir :
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> You are trying to argue the necessity point.
>>
>> I'm not arguing any point. I'm asking questions so that I might
>> understand what the st
costly to
recover from is an appropriate risk-management consideration.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 08:32
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries
Hi Dennis;
--- Ven 13/1/12, Dennis E. Hamilton ha scritto:
> Pedro,
>
> That seems like a silly reason to step down from the
> PPMC.
>
> Nothing discussed here has involved a vote and it is not an
> ooo-private discussion.
>
> There is no obligation to vote on any issue and an
> abstentio
ears to be a simple disagreement.
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Pedro Giffuni
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
>>
Pedro,
+1000 to your plan. It is another step in the correct direction.
Best Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Dennis;
>
> --- Ven 13/1/12, Dennis E. Hamilton ha scritto:
>
>> Pedro,
>>
>> That seems like a silly reason to step down f
On 13 January 2012 18:36, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> You are trying to argue the necessity point.
>>
>> I'm not arguing any point. I'm asking questions so that I might
>> understand what the sticki
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On 13 January 2012 18:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Ross Gardler
>> wrote:
>>> On 13 January 2012 17:38, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
You are trying to argue the necessity point.
>>>
>>> I'm not arguing any point. I'm
Jeez Rob,
I'm tired of this. I am trying to put a full stop at the end of this.
I say again.
> What I, and I guess many other ASF Members, will want to avoid is to
> make it easier to modify code and archive it here as a fork than it is
> to work at getting the patches committed upstream.
> Whe
61 matches
Mail list logo
