On Monday 28 July 2008 11:41, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> And then lazy consensus for
> the IP Clearance form check by the Incubator PMC.
72 hours has passed. We will continue to import the tar ball to Felix
repository.
Thanks
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.co
On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:59, Upayavira wrote:
> i.e. would it be acceptable to do a SourceForge release based upon code
> in the ASF repository?
Yes, you know that the license allows this. BUT it can't be called an Apache
JSecurity release, nor should they portray it as such in correspondence
OK thanks for that feedback. These contributions were not
specifically assigned to me by the comitters, so I think there
copyright status is disputable. I dont think we need to consider this
aspect further, and should just proceed as normal.
regards Malcolm Edgar
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:14 AM
On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click
currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if
they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code
people have explicity assigned their copyright t
One possible complication to this is that all the code in Click
currently has a copyright header assigned to Malcolm Edgar, even if
they were contributed from other comitters. So in committing code
people have explicity assigned their copyright to me. This was a
habit I picked up from working on T
Let's take this to legal-discuss and see what comes out. After all,
that
is where the lawyers lurk.
Good idea.
Also keep in mind that the problem scope is not limited to the
projects coming to the incubator. It also affects contributions to the
existing projects by new people. Currently a
I feel your pain and I know that Cayenne was in a bad spot because of
this. But if we can ease the process for others, why not?
Let's take this to legal-discuss and see what comes out. After all, that
is where the lawyers lurk.
Ciao
Henning
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 10:42
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
>> contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
>> AL2. So there is no n
On Jul 30, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
AL2. So there is no need to track down the contributors and/or rewrite
code where the contributor can no
Thanks Martijn.
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 10:15 +0200, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I've added empire-db to the reporting schedule
> (http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReportingSchedule)
>
> I took the liberty to add empire-db to the "March, June, September,
> December" schema, even though our last 3-mo
My personal understanding here is, that Ahmed (and any other
contributor) contributed that code to a project that is already under
AL2. So there is no need to track down the contributors and/or rewrite
code where the contributor can not be tracked down. The AL allows
relicensing under AL2 ( :-) ),
On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:23 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
> > infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,
> > maintain, and release non-ASF releases. To be sure in the case of
> > JSecurity the final artif
12 matches
Mail list logo
