A couple of times on this thread, Berin and others have pointed out that
"regular status reporting" is not all that incubating projects need. I
think that this is an important point.
The ever-present, never-defined "oversight" term seems to imply more of an
event interface -- "raise issues," "
Hi Matt,
(IANAL)
Matt Liotta wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. At this point, I am reluctant to release
the code under an Apache style license without a community behind it.
I don't want to see our code go into some proprietary project and
never benefit the community because the actual ope
While I certainly appreciate your concerns about releasing under a
bsd/apache style license without a community, please also consider the
difficulties of relicensing. If you change the license from [L]GPL to
bsd/apache, you will need to get something like written agreement from
every contribu
Le Jeudi, 1 jan 2004, à 17:57 Europe/Zurich, Matt Liotta a écrit :
...Right now my thinking is that we will release the code under the
GPL and put it up on Sourceforge
Note that you can use an Apache-like license on SourceForge.
The chaperon and jfor projects, for example, are hosted there b
Thanks for all the responses. At this point, I am reluctant to release
the code under an Apache style license without a community behind it. I
don't want to see our code go into some proprietary project and never
benefit the community because the actual open release was handled
incorrectly. Rig
