On 9/6/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Where can I get the schedule for the Board Meetings for Nov/Dec 2007 ?
> This page [1] only have approved minutes from previous meetings...
Board meetings have a fixed schedule, on the third Wednesday of every month.
They sometimes get res
Where can I get the schedule for the Board Meetings for Nov/Dec 2007 ?
This page [1] only have approved minutes from previous meetings...
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/board/calendar.html
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogs
On Thursday, September 6, 2007, 6:18:42 PM, Janne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2007, at 17:20, Gwyn Evans wrote:
>> While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
>> not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
>> 3rd-party licencing policy at h
t.peng.dev wrote:
> Ok, according to prior meeting of our team, we prefer Apache license.
In that case...
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Friday 31 August 2007 09:50, t.peng.dev wrote:
>>
>>> BSDCS depends on API provided by FFMpeg, it use GPL.
>>
>> This is probably a big issue, and you will mos
On 9/6/07, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/6/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
> > > not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're
Is there a roadmap for when JSPWiki will have all of the features and
functionality of both Confluence and MoinMoin, including the
Confluence
macros we use, and the migration tools so that we can move all the
existing
data from these existing wikis to JSPWiki? Without that, I don't
see us
re
On 6 Sep 2007, at 17:20, Gwyn Evans wrote:
While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
redirects to the draft at http://people.apache.
On 9/6/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/6/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
> > not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
> > 3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.ap
On 9/6/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/6/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
> > not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
> > 3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.apac
On 9/6/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
> not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
> 3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> redirects to the draft at http://pe
Well, let me put it this way: it would be kinda dumb to run our
public wiki site on another wiki engine. ;-)
Dumb? So we must already be dumb, then, to be running other things
like JVMs
that don't come from the ASF, rather than our own.
Nonono, what I meant was that it would be odd to have
While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm
not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The
3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
redirects to the draft at http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html,
but that suggests that,
I'm concerned about all of the 3rd party dependencies that use quite a
variety of other licenses. The relicensing page says "Category B: Keep" for
many of these. I'm not clear on where the "Category B" part comes from, but
I don't believe that some of these can be kept. Some of the licenses, such
a
On 9/6/07, Janne Jalkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What do you mean? Apache does not have needed lower level projects to
> > run JSPWiki?
> > How about Tomcat+Harmony?
>
> Well, let me put it this way: it would be kinda dumb to run our
> public wiki site on another wiki engine. ;-)
Dumb?
On Thursday 06 September 2007 17:56, Janne Jalkanen wrote:
> We are tracking the progress here:
>
> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ApacheRelicensing
I think this is excellent and shows that you are on top of things.
+1 to bring JSPWiki to incubation at ASF.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Deve
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 9/6/07, Janne Jalkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...So, any advice on this matter?...
In my (totally non-lawyer) opinion, the cleanest way to change the
JSPWiki code to the Apache License might be for the project to release
an Apac
Yep, I got your point.
I've personally thought about possibility for users to run JSPWiki on
full Apache stack.
This could be nice out-of-the-box bundle: JSPWiki+Tomcat+Harmony
SY, Alexey
2007/9/6, Janne Jalkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What do you mean? Apache does not have needed lower level
In my (totally non-lawyer) opinion, the cleanest way to change the
JSPWiki code to the Apache License might be for the project to release
an Apache License version of their code, before coming to the
Incubator, using their existing release channels.
This would mean that the existing community has
What do you mean? Apache does not have needed lower level projects to
run JSPWiki?
How about Tomcat+Harmony?
Well, let me put it this way: it would be kinda dumb to run our
public wiki site on another wiki engine. ;-)
We also have separate documentation and sandbox wikis.
http://www.jspwiki
2007/9/4, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Big +1 on JSPWiki. I've been a fan for years of the software and the
> community that drives it forward. There may be some issues with
> getting the JSPWiki web application up and running on Apache
> infrastructure, which will be necessary for this effort
What
On 9/6/07, Janne Jalkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...So, any advice on this matter?...
In my (totally non-lawyer) opinion, the cleanest way to change the
JSPWiki code to the Apache License might be for the project to release
an Apache License version of their code, before coming to the
Incub
IANAL, but I am pretty sure you are right. However, I think there
is an issue
on "how simple is simple?". It seems common to talk about 10 lines
of code
are not infringements, but then noone give any hint of an upper
limit. I
think it would be good if it could be documented somehow, to get a
22 matches
Mail list logo
