You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> on 2006/08/15 15:57:58 UTC
Re: Specifications as (part of) ASF projects (was RE: Too many
licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow)
Idiotic question from complete Apache newbie: is the proposal that
Apache should start hosting specs but would still host projects
implementing foreign specs, or that Apache should stop hosting projects
implementing non-Apache specs?
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 08:34 +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > Carl Trieloff wrote:
> >
> > > -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing specifications? <-
> >
> > > As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating
> > > specifications, there will be by definition some separation
> > > between code and spec processes, and I would like to work
> > > with the ASF to try improve this.
> >
> > Wait ... why can't a specification be a releasable, just like a codebase? The only issue, as I see it, would be enforcement of compliance. And Roy even put forward a proposed license amendment for such things.
> >
> > As you saying that if the ASF would host the specification, that you and the rest of the AMQP IP holders would be willing to contribute and manage the specification here under ASF practices?
> >
> > I would be in favor of such an approach. Honestly, I would vastly prefer to have Open Specifications managed under ASF processes than under the JCP, OASIS, etc.
>
> +1
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Specifications as (part of) ASF projects (was RE: Too many licenses?
Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Alan Conway wrote:
> Idiotic question from complete Apache newbie: is the proposal that
> Apache should start hosting specs but would still host projects
> implementing foreign specs, or that Apache should stop hosting projects
> implementing non-Apache specs?
Twofold answer IMHO...
if we host a spec, it shouldn't be the same as the implementation project,
but an independent 'project' that is implementation neutral.
and there is no reason to expect to host every spec. Many have very logical
umbrellas today that are acceptable. There are some spec umbrellas that are
not acceptable due to the control / nda / ip considerations and those sorts
of implementations wouldn't be appropriate for the open dialog of an ASF
hosted project. Open/transparent/freely licenseable specs are really not
an issue for the ASF to host one implementation, no matter what umbrella
hosts such a spec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Specifications as (part of) ASF projects (was RE: Too many
licenses? Was: [vote] Accept Glasgow)
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
> Idiotic question from complete Apache newbie: is the proposal that
> Apache should start hosting specs but would still host projects
> implementing foreign specs, or that Apache should stop hosting
> projects
> implementing non-Apache specs?
I haven't read anything as meaning that Apache would stop hosting
projects implementing external specs. We would have to cancel most of
the existing projects.
And we're circling around the idea of hosting spec-writing projects
but haven't come close to understanding the implications. And it's
not clear to me that the project that stimulated the discussion even
wants to have a spec-writing component.
Craig
>
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 08:34 +0100, James Strachan wrote:
>> On 8/13/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>>> Carl Trieloff wrote:
>>>
>>>> -> Is Apache in the business of writing and publishing
>>>> specifications? <-
>>>
>>>> As long as Apache is not in the business of also creating
>>>> specifications, there will be by definition some separation
>>>> between code and spec processes, and I would like to work
>>>> with the ASF to try improve this.
>>>
>>> Wait ... why can't a specification be a releasable, just like a
>>> codebase? The only issue, as I see it, would be enforcement of
>>> compliance. And Roy even put forward a proposed license
>>> amendment for such things.
>>>
>>> As you saying that if the ASF would host the specification, that
>>> you and the rest of the AMQP IP holders would be willing to
>>> contribute and manage the specification here under ASF practices?
>>>
>>> I would be in favor of such an approach. Honestly, I would
>>> vastly prefer to have Open Specifications managed under ASF
>>> processes than under the JCP, OASIS, etc.
>>
>> +1
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!