On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
> and distribution to a self-selected subgroup.
You are right that it is a big "IMHO" of everything here, but
"self-selected subgroup" is not a legal term in copyrighted materia
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
>> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
>
> No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
> steps) and a p
There's also a world of difference between worldwide distribution
and distribution to a self-selected subgroup. Niclas has no clue
what he's talking about when liability considerations are factored in,
and as this is not a list where legal council for the ASF makes itself
available I suggest his w
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> So, any policy in the area is not really bound in the legal space, and
> more in the 'representation of ASF'-space.
No, there is a legal distinction between work-product (the intermediate
steps) and a publication. Posts like this might attempt to muddy the
distinction,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> It's fine to make nightly builds available, including of documentation. All
> I'm suggesting is that, just as nightly builds should not be linked to from
> the general download page, nightly documentation should not be linked to
> from the ge
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Todd Volkert wrote:
>> Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
>> Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
>> that would be interested in incubating such a project with me?
+1 (again ;-) )
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> Hi;
>
> After over one years in the incubator with providing three
> releases
> OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel that we
> are
> ready to propose to the Incubator PMC
- Original Message
> From: Doug Cutting
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 6:24:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
> > can't take the re
Joe Schaefer wrote:
Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
can't take the release back.
Good point. We don't mirror the website on 3rd party sites like we do
releases, nor does HTTPD currently package pre-release docs as an
archive that folks might download a
On 06/12/2009, at 08:56, Gavin wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Thorsten Scherler [mailto:thorsten.scherler@juntadeandalucia.es]
>> Sent: Friday, 4 December 2009 10:35 PM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: How to put droids into the snapshot rep
>>
>> Hi all,
- Original Message
> From: Paul Querna
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 5:34:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect that renaming /
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and
>> follow this best practice?
>
> I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy
> indicate that all developer-
Doug Cutting wrote:
> William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be
>> sufficient and
>> follow this best practice?
>
> I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard
> Roy indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and
follow this best practice?
I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy
indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL.
I think it would be
Doug Cutting wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> So I'm not too clear on what your objections are.
>> * Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
>> project Web pages?
>
> I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion
> of the project's web site
Hi;
After over one years in the incubator with providing three releases
OpenWebBeans community with the support of our mentors feel that we are
ready to propose to the Incubator PMC to graduate OpenWebBeans to a
Top Level Project.
See the following community gr
Doug Cutting wrote:
> In the absence of specific policy then *objections* are out of order
I have not objected to anything.
Forgive me. I did in fact use the verb "object" in a prior message:
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
Niall Pemberton wrote:
You're taking a
policy that applies to release artifacts and stretching it to
something it wasn't intended to cover.
Applying the rules for releases to significant subsets of releases
doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Subsets are subject to the
same copyright
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>> So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
>> convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
>> community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
>> them mo
Leo Simons wrote:
So, subversion publishes their trunk API docs nightly, for the
convenience of their own developers and the surrounding tool developer
community. All those people mostly want trunk API docs, and they want
them mostly so they don't have to run doxygen themselves. There's
really no
Branko Čibej wrote:
So I'm not too clear on what your objections are.
* Do you object to publishing non-released documentation on the
project Web pages?
I object to posting these outside of a clearly-marked developer portion
of the project's web site.
Then you should start
Branko Čibej wrote:
Actually, we're talking about API documentation which in Subversion's
case is generated from the sources, so yes, it is subject to release
votes. But only for actual releases.
Restricting the publishing of generated API documentation would imply
that we should restrict access
Todd Volkert wrote:
> Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
> Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
> that would be interested in incubating such a project with me? :) Do you
> know of any barriers to such a project (like
Does anyone on this list know of an existing open source pure-Java Advanced
Audio Coding (AAC) library? If not, are there any audiophiles on this list
that would be interested in incubating such a project with me? :) Do you
know of any barriers to such a project (like performance of a pure-Java
l
24 matches
Mail list logo
