-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/20/15 1:07 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
> I am confused! Are we asking for short license notice at the top of
> the contributions as Tom mentioned or just this global one?
The best way to describe it is this:
osops-tools-contrib, defaults to Apach
I am confused! Are we asking for short license notice at the top of the
contributions as Tom mentioned or just this global one?
No preference at this moment but we should do things right from the beginning.
Edgar
On 11/20/15, 9:13 AM, "JJ Asghar" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I agree with the repo being licensed and everything in it being
inherited, unless otherwise specified.
Thanks for the quick movement on this, everyone!
On 11/20/15 11:13 AM, JJ Asghar wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/19/15 10:40 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
Unless there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/19/15 10:40 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
> Unless there's a reason why we *can't* do something like that (I have no
> idea why, but I never assume anything when it comes to things like
> licensing :) then I'm in favor of updating the README to state
First let me just say that I find nothing more infuriating than “software
licensing.” We burn so much effort on this, when all we want to do is share
the code to help others.
I agree with Joe, I thought the agreement was stuff in “contrib” wouldn’t need
license, specific formatting, test, et
Unless there's a reason why we *can't* do something like that (I have no
idea why, but I never assume anything when it comes to things like
licensing :) then I'm in favor of updating the README to state "Your code
will be licensed under Apache 2 unless you mention otherwise."
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015
On 20/11/15 12:29, Matt Fischer wrote:
Is there a reason why we can't license the entire repo with Apache2 and
if you want to contribute you agree to that? Otherwise it might become a
bit of a nightmare. Or maybe at least do "Apache2 unless otherwise stated"?
According to http://www.apache.org
+1 for the "unless otherwise stated" bit. I seem to recall some
non-standard requirements from the likes of HP. Apache should be a good
default though.
-Erik
On Nov 19, 2015 11:31 PM, "Matt Fischer" wrote:
> Is there a reason why we can't license the entire repo with Apache2 and if
> you want to
Is there a reason why we can't license the entire repo with Apache2 and if
you want to contribute you agree to that? Otherwise it might become a bit
of a nightmare. Or maybe at least do "Apache2 unless otherwise stated"?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
> Thanks, JJ!
>
> It l
Thanks, JJ!
It looks like David Wahlstrom submitted a script and there's a question
about license.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247823/
Though contributions to contrib do not have to follow a certain coding
style, can be very lax on error handling, etc, should they at least mention
a license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hey everyone,
I just want to announce that tools-contrib[1] is now open for
submissions. Please take a moment to read the README[2] to get
yourself familiar with it. I'm hoping to see many scripts and tools
start to trickle in.
Remember, by commit
11 matches
Mail list logo