On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:48 -0800, Mark Slee wrote:
> Well, note that this isn't strictly an IP issue. The issue here was the
> committers list, not the IP of the code. I don't see why all the code
> would need to be written by people on the initial committers list to
> pass IP restrictions.
>
>
Hi Robert,
On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
i think i understand the general process for importing code into the
ASF but i'm a little hazy about the way that code arrives when a new
podling is started based on external code. i need to understand the
process better before
Well, note that this isn't strictly an IP issue. The issue here was the
committers list, not the IP of the code. I don't see why all the code
would need to be written by people on the initial committers list to
pass IP restrictions.
These two seem like disjoint issues to me. All code in the codeba
+1
On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Incubator PMC,
Please vote on accepting the PDFBox project for incubation. The full
PDFBox proposal is available at the end of this message and as a wiki
page at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PDFBoxProposal. We ask the
Incubator PMC to spo
i think i understand the general process for importing code into the
ASF but i'm a little hazy about the way that code arrives when a new
podling is started based on external code. i need to understand the
process better before trying to document it. here are some initial
questions:
1 is a softwar
On Feb 3, 2008 7:55 PM, Upayavira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 19:23 +, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > should the IPMC/Mentors have karma for setting up issue tracking for a
> > new podling or is the infrastructure team?
>
> I'd say it is the infrastructure team that g
+1
Craig
On Feb 1, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Please vote on accepting the PDFBox project for incubation. The full
PDFBox proposal is available at the end of this message and as a wiki
page at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/PDFBoxProposal. We ask the
Incubator PMC to sponsor the
Please take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
INCUBATOR-72 which I believe fixes the problem.
The policy calls for a community vote (which generally only the
mentors are aware of) and if successful, followed by a binding vote on
the incubator general list by which all incubato
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Craig Russell updated INCUBATOR-72:
---
Attachment: incubator-72.patch
This patch removes the text "and only the PPMC member votes
Clarify release policy by removing "binding" from dev vote
--
Key: INCUBATOR-72
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-72
Project: Incubator
Issue Type: Improvement
On Feb 4, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
And to be quite frank, it feels very counterproductive to me to
remove
code from the project with full a priori intention of putting it
back
in.
Are you sure you will get the appro
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either "on private time", such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual. Or it is "on company time". Then the person is
On Feb 4, 2008 4:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Weber wrote:
> > I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
> > open source participation. It is either "on private time", such
> > as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
> >
Roland Weber wrote:
I think that is a bit oversimplified. IBM has strict rules about
open source participation. It is either "on private time", such
as my involvement at Apache. Then the person is acting as an
individual. Or it is "on company time". Then the person is doing
what he or she is paid
On 2/4/08, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, you are right. I just doublechecked Cayenne incubator release
> history, and we did clear all our IP issues before posting the first
> release. Anyways, throwing away the code just to *enter* the Incubator
> is neither required
True
Sorry, you are right. I just doublechecked Cayenne incubator release
history, and we did clear all our IP issues before posting the first
release. Anyways, throwing away the code just to *enter* the Incubator
is neither required nor seems like a good approach.
Andrus
On Feb 4, 2008, at 2:
On 2/4/08, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As long as you remember that you can't release or graduate
> without properly
> > audited code with a paper trail to the original author of the code.
>
> You can release from the incubator before all IP is cleared.
No you can't: from the
On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
And to be quite frank, it feels very counterproductive to me to
remove
code from the project with full a priori intention of putting it back
in.
Are you sure you will get the appropriate ICLA's from all the
authors that
have contribu
On 2/1/08, Mark Slee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, dropping parts of the code feels counterproductive to me, as I
> think it might put up a perceived barrier to collaboration with the
> Thrift project.
As long as you remember that you can't release or graduate without properly
audited c
On Feb 4, 2008 7:24 AM, Stefan Hepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't group all IBM'ers, really - I actually believe IBM'ers do tons
> > of good in many open source projects. Also I think IBM itself is a
> > somewhat good open source citizen in several regards.
> >
> > But it is not individu
Stefan
Thanks for the clearly thought out answer.
Paul
On Feb 4, 2008 5:55 AM, Stefan Hepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul,
> I still think it is of value doing RIs at Apache, because it makes the
> standard that is implemented more open and easier to consume.
>
> I also think that the new J
Paul,
I still think it is of value doing RIs at Apache, because it makes the
standard that is implemented more open and easier to consume.
I also think that the new JCP process allows to do it more inline with
Apache rules, however it still requires some special treatment (and some
additional pat
I don't group all IBM'ers, really - I actually believe IBM'ers do tons
of good in many open source projects. Also I think IBM itself is a
somewhat good open source citizen in several regards.
But it is not individuals that propose this particular project, as I
understand it: it is IBM and BEA.
23 matches
Mail list logo
