done. there is now only a README.TXT
(https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/sandbox/trunk/scm/README.TXT)
--
Olivier
2009/3/21 Brett Porter :
> On 21/03/2009, at 9:05 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> So I have moved back the provider to sandbox and start a fork here [1]
>> If someone want to have ka
On 21/03/2009, at 9:05 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
So I have moved back the provider to sandbox and start a fork here [1]
If someone want to have karma ping me.
I suggest we just remove the provider from the sandbox then rather
than have the ambiguity.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
On 21/03/2009, at 6:38 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Brett,
There is no way we accept the Sleepcat license, it's viral. It is
also heavily recommend against using because it can force you to
have to redistribute your source code. That from our IP lawyer who
deals with every day. Please don't
So I have moved back the provider to sandbox and start a fork here [1]
If someone want to have karma ping me.
--
Olivier
[1] http://code.google.com/p/maven-scm-provider-svnjava/
2009/3/20 Jason van Zyl :
> Brett,
>
> There is no way we accept the Sleepcat license, it's viral. It is also
> heavily
Brett,
There is no way we accept the Sleepcat license, it's viral. It is also
heavily recommend against using because it can force you to have to
redistribute your source code. That from our IP lawyer who deals with
every day. Please don't dispense legal advice. Everything in law is in
in
On 20/03/2009, at 2:17 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
So the Brett proposal looks fine too.
I can mark the svnjava provider as optionnal and explain why on the
scm site and explain how to use it.
That was all my opinion, so we should get it confirmed before release.
Note that under the current FAQ
On 19-Mar-09, at 8:17 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
So the Brett proposal looks fine too.
I can mark the svnjava provider as optionnal and explain why on the
scm site and explain how to use it.
The svn library is not optional for this component to work. You
require it to run.
SVNKit and that's n
On 19/03/2009, at 7:29 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 19-Mar-09, at 1:25 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
Ok. It's was not really clear for me.
There is precedent - we grandfathered in Checkstyle which is LGPL as
it is just a dependency of a plugin, which we don't actually distribute.
The gene
neral
clearance for using it in Apache projects.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Jason van Zyl schrieb am Do, 19.3.2009:
> Von: Jason van Zyl
> Betreff: Re: svnjava provider and maven scm
> An: scm-dev@maven.apache.org
> Datum: Donnerstag, 19. März 2009, 9:29
> On 19-Mar-09, at 1:25 AM, Oliv
If the license is not one that the ASF accepts then we can't really
dodge the issue by saying that it's only in the POM.
On 18-Mar-09, at 5:22 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
As we don't distribute the svnkit (it's only a dependency available in
the central repo), why we can't make a release of t
Hi,
As we don't distribute the svnkit (it's only a dependency available in
the central repo), why we can't make a release of this provider ?
Any objections to move the sandbox module in trunk ?
Thanks,
--
Olivier
11 matches
Mail list logo
