You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@oltu.apache.org by Pid <pi...@pidster.com> on 2012/05/09 22:05:27 UTC
Proposal for n.0 codebase
Hi all,
There's been a bit of a gap since Antonio's last thread/summary.
Can we have a checkpoint now & see what's changed, if anything?
I know there's been some discussion with legal@ and I'd happily
volunteer to discuss the copyright issue with Newcastle Uni, if the
project felt that this would help move things forwards.
If not, then it seems like the following are our options - unless I've
missed a thread & am out of date*:
1. We proceed with a release (Incubator permits releases even if all
exit criteria are not met)
2. We tag the existing trunk & mark it DORMANT; starting a fresh API
(ie abstract/interface only) for discussion - attempting a cleaner
implementation thereafter
3. We send Amber to the Attic
Question: Are there any other options?
p
* Happy to be corrected, of course!
Note: IANAL but I think that #2 might be tricky legally, without finding
new committers who are not tainted by having read our code; copyright in
software is reasonably well established in this regard AFAIK.
#2 effectively implies that our tenure of the project is a transitional
one, as we'd effectively be handing it over to people who can write code
for the project.
--
[key:62590808]
Re: Proposal for n.0 codebase
Posted by Antonio Sanso <as...@adobe.com>.
Hi *,
On May 10, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi, Pid.
>
> Thank you for resuming the checkpoints. Please see my comments inline.
>
> Raymond
>
> On May 9, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Pid wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There's been a bit of a gap since Antonio's last thread/summary.
>>
>> Can we have a checkpoint now & see what's changed, if anything?
>>
>> I know there's been some discussion with legal@ and I'd happily
>> volunteer to discuss the copyright issue with Newcastle Uni, if the
>> project felt that this would help move things forwards.
>>
>>
>
> If you can help resolve the issue with Newcastle Univ. and have them sign off the copyright (they can just agree to either remove it or move them into the NOTICE file from the headers). This is the only concern left.
+1
>
>>
>>
>> If not, then it seems like the following are our options - unless I've
>> missed a thread & am out of date*:
>>
>> 1. We proceed with a release (Incubator permits releases even if all
>> exit criteria are not met)
>
> Based on the comments on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-134, I think we are good to move forward.
+1 . So how about a first release? See also [0]?
Regards
Antonio
[0] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AMBER/Amber+next+release+plan
>
>>
>> 2. We tag the existing trunk & mark it DORMANT; starting a fresh API
>> (ie abstract/interface only) for discussion - attempting a cleaner
>> implementation thereafter
>
> I prefer option 1.
>
>>
>> 3. We send Amber to the Attic
>>
>
> -1 :-).
>
>>
>> Question: Are there any other options?
>>
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>> * Happy to be corrected, of course!
>>
>> Note: IANAL but I think that #2 might be tricky legally, without finding
>> new committers who are not tainted by having read our code; copyright in
>> software is reasonably well established in this regard AFAIK.
>>
>> #2 effectively implies that our tenure of the project is a transitional
>> one, as we'd effectively be handing it over to people who can write code
>> for the project.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [key:62590808]
>>
>
Re: Proposal for n.0 codebase
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Pid.
Thank you for resuming the checkpoints. Please see my comments inline.
Raymond
On May 9, 2012, at 1:05 PM, Pid wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There's been a bit of a gap since Antonio's last thread/summary.
>
> Can we have a checkpoint now & see what's changed, if anything?
>
> I know there's been some discussion with legal@ and I'd happily
> volunteer to discuss the copyright issue with Newcastle Uni, if the
> project felt that this would help move things forwards.
>
>
If you can help resolve the issue with Newcastle Univ. and have them sign off the copyright (they can just agree to either remove it or move them into the NOTICE file from the headers). This is the only concern left.
>
>
> If not, then it seems like the following are our options - unless I've
> missed a thread & am out of date*:
>
> 1. We proceed with a release (Incubator permits releases even if all
> exit criteria are not met)
Based on the comments on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-134, I think we are good to move forward.
>
> 2. We tag the existing trunk & mark it DORMANT; starting a fresh API
> (ie abstract/interface only) for discussion - attempting a cleaner
> implementation thereafter
I prefer option 1.
>
> 3. We send Amber to the Attic
>
-1 :-).
>
> Question: Are there any other options?
>
>
> p
>
>
> * Happy to be corrected, of course!
>
> Note: IANAL but I think that #2 might be tricky legally, without finding
> new committers who are not tainted by having read our code; copyright in
> software is reasonably well established in this regard AFAIK.
>
> #2 effectively implies that our tenure of the project is a transitional
> one, as we'd effectively be handing it over to people who can write code
> for the project.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> [key:62590808]
>