You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2005/11/02 22:38:23 UTC
[consolidation] next steps?
Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
should we proceed?
I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the
project join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for
the incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept
the project and forward it to incubator.
The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread
and the email addresses for their dev lists.
ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
-dain
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
> I think it would be a really nice gesture to send an invite to Jetty
> even if they are unlikely to move. I think it's really great to let
> them know the doors are always open.
Thanks for the inclusion David,
Note that in any invite, I think we should go so some lengths to
explain the motivation. For most projects it will be a BIG step to donate
their IP and to adopt a new management structure and they must be
clear why they are doing it.
We certainly don't want to create the impression that geronimo in
future will only work with subprojects and that you must assimilate to
belong. So careful wording is required to get the true spirit of
the invitation across - which I think is that iff they WANT to be a part
of the bigger community then they are more than welcome.
For Jetty, I would appreciate an invite, but we're unlikely
to accept at this point. My instincts are naturally against aggregations
and I have technical issues with aggregations like jakarta, jakarta-commons,
jboss and even tomcat (I'd really like to see jasper as a stand alone project).
I believe that a good software component should be simple to integrate
no matter what the management structure of the project is (and we will
all be m2 integrated soon). Sharing a management structure does open the
possibility of poor coupling between components or even just poorly documented
interfaces etc.
So technically I don't like aggregation of projects and it can act
as a hindrance to reuse and inovative new uses.
But if similar groups of people are performing similar processes on
similar software.... then obviously there are great advantages in
sharing the administration overheads. So I think aggregations that
are community driven are a good thing.
So the pitch definitely should be targetted at the community rather
than at project.
cheers
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 1:38 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
> should we proceed?
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the
> project join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for
> the incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to
> accept the project and forward it to incubator.
>
> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread
> and the email addresses for their dev lists.
>
> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
>
I think it would be a really nice gesture to send an invite to Jetty
even if they are unlikely to move. I think it's really great to let
them know the doors are always open.
-David
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Do you have a link for proposal for incubation?
Jeff
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Good point Ken. How about we consider this thread the invite? So
> formally:
>
> We would like to invite the projects that Geronimo works with to
> consider joining Geronimo as a Subproject. If your project would like
> to join, we will either need a proposal to incubate the project, or a
> proposal to donate the code. In the case of incubation, the current
> committers will have immediate access to their code in the incubator,
> and in the case of an donation, the current committers will have to earn
> commit on Geronimo.
>
> -dain
>
> On Nov 4, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
>>> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
>>> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the project
>>> join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the
>>> incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept the
>>> project and forward it to incubator.
>>
>> I think that might be a little overpowering. How about having
>> people in the projects approach their own community and float the
>> idea? 'What do you think about joining Geronimo? I hear they'd
>> be glad to have us if we wanted to do it..'
>>
>> As much as possible it should be driven by the projects wanting
>> to join rather than by Geronimo wanting them.
>> - --
>> #ken P-)}
>>
>> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>>
>> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iQCVAwUBQ2vV55rNPMCpn3XdAQLb6wQAuxhFibQkK842F83f77h3UL+d6V4A+odf
>> OQEaZDiE1z10eWMB+M4deLJY80h4b+bbtMCaV6l/F5KIrx/pFmr8JhI22q8WM3/J
>> Rw2QAmawHXxRMGhrPCNZfwTmPO5B64XQjrfK8m/uPUVaDXxkl2MxUwV/q87zVU7t
>> g0IIdGRQPUk=
>> =D6cv
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
This is an area of much confusion. This may help (or it may not :)
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200508.mbox/%3c42EEFFBA.9030901@dslextreme.com%3e
(tiny: http://tinyurl.com/8fcx6)
Basic gist, as I understand (IANAL): the copyright is not assigned to
the ASF, but licensed to the ASF. This is done through a software
grant form.
If anyone is interested in this, you should review the thread above
and join the legal-discuss list which is open to all committers to ask
questions.
HTH,
Brett
On 11/8/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
> > > b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
> >
> > I was told there was no way for someone to assign copyrights to the
> > ASF. Has this changed and if so where is the form?
>
> That's a question for Noel. Let's allow him (or someone else in the
> know) some time to respond.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>.
Thaks for the clarifications, Brett.
Jules
Brett Porter wrote:
>I'm not on the incubator PMC, so this is just my personal
>understanding. I may be getting in over my head :)
>
>On 11/9/05, Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
>
>
>>are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the
>>incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter what,
>>provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion out of it ?
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, I was unclear. I don't think I'd recommend this, but it is
>possible as code in the incubator is covered by a disclaimer and no
>releases can be made until IP and licensing has been cleared.
>
>
>
>>please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean 'physically
>>package together with your binary distribution' or 'import at compile
>>time, into classes that are shipped in the binary distribution'.
>>
>>
>
>I think both of these constitute a derivative work falling under the
>GPL. As far as I know, the only way to combine with GPL applications
>is by executing them in a separate process.
>
>
>
>>>LGPL may be
>>>possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
>>>application.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you don't
>>ship it ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>There is ongoing discussion around this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
>>
>>
>
>right.
>http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200508.mbox/%3c96D75844-B15A-45E3-BF8D-5CF4517A09E2@apache.org%3e
>
>
>
>>thanks for helping with this.
>>
>>
>
>No problem. I think it would be best to ask these questions of
>general@incubator and legal-discuss when it comes to specifics.
>
>Cheers,
>- Brett
>
>
--
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."
/**********************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
*
* www.coredevelopers.net
*
* Open Source Training & Support.
**********************************/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
I'm not on the incubator PMC, so this is just my personal
understanding. I may be getting in over my head :)
On 11/9/05, Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net> wrote:
> are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the
> incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter what,
> provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion out of it ?
Sorry, I was unclear. I don't think I'd recommend this, but it is
possible as code in the incubator is covered by a disclaimer and no
releases can be made until IP and licensing has been cleared.
> please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean 'physically
> package together with your binary distribution' or 'import at compile
> time, into classes that are shipped in the binary distribution'.
I think both of these constitute a derivative work falling under the
GPL. As far as I know, the only way to combine with GPL applications
is by executing them in a separate process.
>
> > LGPL may be
> >possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
> >application.
> >
> so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you don't
> ship it ?
>
> > There is ongoing discussion around this.
> >
> >
> so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
right.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200508.mbox/%3c96D75844-B15A-45E3-BF8D-5CF4517A09E2@apache.org%3e
> thanks for helping with this.
No problem. I think it would be best to ask these questions of
general@incubator and legal-discuss when it comes to specifics.
Cheers,
- Brett
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/9/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 9, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> > On 11/9/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires
> >> that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.
> >
> > Geir, do you know if this includes the use of reflection against a
> > class so as to avoid a compile time dependency?
>
> I'm not sure. I don't think about GPL much. It is a runtime thing,
> and from the GPL preamble :
>
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> running the Program is not restricted..."
>
> which supports my understanding that runtime activity such as you
> suggest is ok...
>
> However, IANAL, and I tend to stay away from GPL-ed code. It's scary :)
>
> >
> >> GPL isn't alllowed at all.
> >
> > My understanding the above statement, but I'm asking my previous
> > question because it appears that the stance may be softening a bit.
>
> No, because you still can't distribute the code, keep it in SVN/CVS,
> etc. your user could go get the code and try to make it work, I
> suppose....
Thanks for the responses, Geir. They are exactly what I expected.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Nov 9, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/9/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires
>> that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.
>
> Geir, do you know if this includes the use of reflection against a
> class so as to avoid a compile time dependency?
I'm not sure. I don't think about GPL much. It is a runtime thing,
and from the GPL preamble :
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted..."
which supports my understanding that runtime activity such as you
suggest is ok...
However, IANAL, and I tend to stay away from GPL-ed code. It's scary :)
>
>> GPL isn't alllowed at all.
>
> My understanding the above statement, but I'm asking my previous
> question because it appears that the stance may be softening a bit.
No, because you still can't distribute the code, keep it in SVN/CVS,
etc. your user could go get the code and try to make it work, I
suppose....
geir
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!
> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/9/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires
> that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.
Geir, do you know if this includes the use of reflection against a
class so as to avoid a compile time dependency?
> GPL isn't alllowed at all.
My understanding the above statement, but I'm asking my previous
question because it appears that the stance may be softening a bit.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> This is one of the requirements of incubation, so it will be taken
>> care of there -
> can you clarify this.
>
> are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the
> incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter
> what, provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion
> out of it ?
Well, the licensing constraints to apply, but the incubator is a
place to sort them out. It simply means that you won't be able to
release anything, nor have those deps in "nightly builds" or that
sort of thing.
Roller in incubator is an example of this (although a very special
case I think).
I think the most wise thing is to jettison everything you can before,
and then be clear about what is there on introduction to the incubator.
>
>> but it's good for those communities to be aware of it
>> when making their decision.
>>
>> The GPL doc you refer to is actually about the combining of ASL and
>> GPL works being possible at all, regardless of the requirements here.
>>
>> The following are some guidelines, though it'd be best to consider
>> individual cases on legal-discuss@ which will have to happen during
>> incubation.
>>
>> As for what you can depend on/include as an ASF project, GPL is not
>> possible because it affects the license of the whole.
>>
> please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean
> 'physically package together with your binary distribution' or
> 'import at compile time, into classes that are shipped in the
> binary distribution'.
if you import GPL at compile time, the virality of the GPL requires
that you license under the GPL, so clearly that's not allowed.
GPL isn't alllowed at all.
>
>> LGPL may be
>> possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
>> application.
>>
> so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you
> don't ship it ?
Currently, this is something that is being decided, and it wouldn't
be prudent to predict the outcome.
One proposal was to allow imports of LGPL as long as the LGPL-ed code
base was not required for the software to run, but rather would
support an optional feature. That still would preclude the incusion
of the LGPL-ed jar in any distribution from the ASF.
Again, this isn't done, and it's a very confusing issue because of
uncertainties people have with the meaning of the LGPL.
>
>> There is ongoing discussion around this.
>>
> so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
>
>> The key point is that the ASF retain its ability to distribute
>> software that doesn't have conditions beyond those in the ASL (yes,
>> there are some exceptions out there).
>>
> thanks for helping with this.
>
>
> Jules
>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> On 11/9/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole
>>> host
>>> of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than
>>> AL. I
>>> know that ServiceMix and WADI integrate such code. So how is
>>> this to
>>> be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
>>> policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>>>
>>> In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
>>> requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
> crystallises out around it."
>
> /**********************************
> * Jules Gosnell
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> *
> * www.coredevelopers.net
> *
> * Open Source Training & Support.
> **********************************/
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Jules Gosnell <ju...@coredevelopers.net>.
Brett Porter wrote:
>This is one of the requirements of incubation, so it will be taken
>care of there -
>
can you clarify this.
are you saying that these licensing constraints do not apply in the
incubator - that we just dump all our code in there, no matter what,
provided that licensing issues are resolved before promotion out of it ?
>but it's good for those communities to be aware of it
>when making their decision.
>
>The GPL doc you refer to is actually about the combining of ASL and
>GPL works being possible at all, regardless of the requirements here.
>
>The following are some guidelines, though it'd be best to consider
>individual cases on legal-discuss@ which will have to happen during
>incubation.
>
>As for what you can depend on/include as an ASF project, GPL is not
>possible because it affects the license of the whole.
>
please clarify 'depend on/include' - by this do you mean 'physically
package together with your binary distribution' or 'import at compile
time, into classes that are shipped in the binary distribution'.
> LGPL may be
>possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
>application.
>
so it is OK to 'import' LGPL code at compile time, as long as you don't
ship it ?
> There is ongoing discussion around this.
>
>
so it may not actually be OK :-) ?
>The key point is that the ASF retain its ability to distribute
>software that doesn't have conditions beyond those in the ASL (yes,
>there are some exceptions out there).
>
>
thanks for helping with this.
Jules
>Cheers,
>Brett
>
>On 11/9/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole host
>>of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than AL. I
>>know that ServiceMix and WADI integrate such code. So how is this to
>>be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
>>policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
>>
>>http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>>
>>In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
>>requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
>>
>>
>>
--
"Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
crystallises out around it."
/**********************************
* Jules Gosnell
* Partner
* Core Developers Network (Europe)
*
* www.coredevelopers.net
*
* Open Source Training & Support.
**********************************/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
This is one of the requirements of incubation, so it will be taken
care of there - but it's good for those communities to be aware of it
when making their decision.
The GPL doc you refer to is actually about the combining of ASL and
GPL works being possible at all, regardless of the requirements here.
The following are some guidelines, though it'd be best to consider
individual cases on legal-discuss@ which will have to happen during
incubation.
As for what you can depend on/include as an ASF project, GPL is not
possible because it affects the license of the whole. LGPL may be
possible, but only if optional and not distributed with the
application. There is ongoing discussion around this.
The key point is that the ASF retain its ability to distribute
software that doesn't have conditions beyond those in the ASL (yes,
there are some exceptions out there).
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/9/05, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole host
> of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than AL. I
> know that ServiceMix and WADI integrate such code. So how is this to
> be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
> policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
> In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
> requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
>
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/7/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> > On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was told there was no way for someone to assign copyrights to the
> >> ASF. Has this changed and if so where is the form?
> >>
> >
> > That's a question for Noel. Let's allow him (or someone else in the
> > know) some time to respond.
>
> No, the copyright isn't assigned to the ASF. The original author
> retains copyright. However, they do provide a copyright license to
> us through the Software Grant or CCLA+SG.
Even beyond the requirements of incubation, there exists a whole host
of issues surrounding the use of code with a license other than AL. I
know that ServiceMix and WADI integrate such code. So how is this to
be sorted out? For example, I know that the ASF has a long-standing
policy on the use of GPL compatibility:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
In addition to the whole GPL can of worms, how about the TranQL
requirement for Oracle and DB2 JDBC drivers?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
>>>
>>
>> I was told there was no way for someone to assign copyrights to the
>> ASF. Has this changed and if so where is the form?
>>
>
> That's a question for Noel. Let's allow him (or someone else in the
> know) some time to respond.
No, the copyright isn't assigned to the ASF. The original author
retains copyright. However, they do provide a copyright license to
us through the Software Grant or CCLA+SG.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
>
> I was told there was no way for someone to assign copyrights to the
> ASF. Has this changed and if so where is the form?
That's a question for Noel. Let's allow him (or someone else in the
know) some time to respond.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> Good point Ken. How about we consider this thread the invite? So
>> formally:
>>
>> We would like to invite the projects that Geronimo works with to
>> consider joining Geronimo as a Subproject. If your project would
>> like to join, we will either need a proposal to incubate the project,
>> or a proposal to donate the code. In the case of incubation, the
>> current committers will have immediate access to their code in the
>> incubator, and in the case of an donation, the current committers
>> will have to earn commit on Geronimo.
>
> I'm not sure of the order in which all steps must occur, but we (the
> Geronimo PMC) must also vote to accept each project per the Incubator
> FAQ:
Absolutely. I guess I wasn't clear. We need a proposal that
Geronimo can vote on and send to the incubator.
> Beyond this, once a project has been voted in, the following
> additional requirements must be met:
>
> a) project license (must be AL 2.0)
> b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
I was told there was no way for someone to assign copyrights to the
ASF. Has this changed and if so where is the form?
> c) all committers must file a CLA with the ASF (if one is not
> already on file)
>
> Please note that it is possible for some (or most) of these projects
> to pass right on through the Incubator as long as the exit criteria
> are met:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/
> Incubation_Policy.html#Exitting+the+Incubator
>
> Also, here's the template that must be filled and submitted upon
> importing each project into the Geronimo SVN repo:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/public/trunk/site-
> author/projects/incubation-status-template.html?view=markup
Excellent. Thanks for the links.
-dain
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/7/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Good point Ken. How about we consider this thread the invite? So
> formally:
>
> We would like to invite the projects that Geronimo works with to
> consider joining Geronimo as a Subproject. If your project would
> like to join, we will either need a proposal to incubate the project,
> or a proposal to donate the code. In the case of incubation, the
> current committers will have immediate access to their code in the
> incubator, and in the case of an donation, the current committers
> will have to earn commit on Geronimo.
I'm not sure of the order in which all steps must occur, but we (the
Geronimo PMC) must also vote to accept each project per the Incubator
FAQ:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4. Someone has proposed that their code/project be donated to
project X within the ASF for continued development. What do we need to
do to accept the code?
The Incubator will only accept code for incubation if a PMC (project
management committee) or the Apache board has voted to accept it. So
when a proposal for the donation of code occurs, the project in
question should discuss the proposal internally, leading to a decision
by that project's PMC on whether or not to accept the code (and
potentially the project surrounding it) into the fold.
If the PMC agrees, then the incubator can be approached, and the code
accepted for incubation. The grant needs to be recorded by following
the procedure outlined at the Software Grants section of the ASF
Licenses page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond this, once a project has been voted in, the following
additional requirements must be met:
a) project license (must be AL 2.0)
b) the copyright must be assigned to the ASF
c) all committers must file a CLA with the ASF (if one is not already on file)
Please note that it is possible for some (or most) of these projects
to pass right on through the Incubator as long as the exit criteria
are met:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Exitting+the+Incubator
Also, here's the template that must be filled and submitted upon
importing each project into the Geronimo SVN repo:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/projects/incubation-status-template.html?view=markup
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Good point Ken. How about we consider this thread the invite? So
formally:
We would like to invite the projects that Geronimo works with to
consider joining Geronimo as a Subproject. If your project would
like to join, we will either need a proposal to incubate the project,
or a proposal to donate the code. In the case of incubation, the
current committers will have immediate access to their code in the
incubator, and in the case of an donation, the current committers
will have to earn commit on Geronimo.
-dain
On Nov 4, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
>> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
>> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the
>> project
>> join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the
>> incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept
>> the
>> project and forward it to incubator.
>
> I think that might be a little overpowering. How about having
> people in the projects approach their own community and float the
> idea? 'What do you think about joining Geronimo? I hear they'd
> be glad to have us if we wanted to do it..'
>
> As much as possible it should be driven by the projects wanting
> to join rather than by Geronimo wanting them.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBQ2vV55rNPMCpn3XdAQLb6wQAuxhFibQkK842F83f77h3UL+d6V4A+odf
> OQEaZDiE1z10eWMB+M4deLJY80h4b+bbtMCaV6l/F5KIrx/pFmr8JhI22q8WM3/J
> Rw2QAmawHXxRMGhrPCNZfwTmPO5B64XQjrfK8m/uPUVaDXxkl2MxUwV/q87zVU7t
> g0IIdGRQPUk=
> =D6cv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the project
> join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the
> incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept the
> project and forward it to incubator.
I think that might be a little overpowering. How about having
people in the projects approach their own community and float the
idea? 'What do you think about joining Geronimo? I hear they'd
be glad to have us if we wanted to do it..'
As much as possible it should be driven by the projects wanting
to join rather than by Geronimo wanting them.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2vV55rNPMCpn3XdAQLb6wQAuxhFibQkK842F83f77h3UL+d6V4A+odf
OQEaZDiE1z10eWMB+M4deLJY80h4b+bbtMCaV6l/F5KIrx/pFmr8JhI22q8WM3/J
Rw2QAmawHXxRMGhrPCNZfwTmPO5B64XQjrfK8m/uPUVaDXxkl2MxUwV/q87zVU7t
g0IIdGRQPUk=
=D6cv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/3/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
> I spoke to Simone about bringing MX4J to Harmony, as we have the
> requirement to have that code as part of the stack. I think it makes
> more sense there.
And...? What was the result of the conversation? Any indication as to
whether Simone is open to the idea?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I spoke to Simone about bringing MX4J to Harmony, as we have the
requirement to have that code as part of the stack. I think it makes
more sense there.
geir
On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:27 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
>> should we proceed?
>>
>> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
>> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
>> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the
>> project join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for
>> the incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept
>> the project and forward it to incubator.
>>
>> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread
>> and the email addresses for their dev lists.
>>
>> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
>> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
>> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
>> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
>> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
>> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
>> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
>> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
>> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
>>
>
> What about MX4J? Have we spoken with Simone at all about this?
>
> Since Geronimo is a TLP, it can sponsor each of the projects.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!
> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
> should we proceed?
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the
> project join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for
> the incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept
> the project and forward it to incubator.
>
> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread
> and the email addresses for their dev lists.
>
> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
What about MX4J? Have we spoken with Simone at all about this?
Since Geronimo is a TLP, it can sponsor each of the projects.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
> should we proceed?
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the project
> join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the
> incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept the
> project and forward it to incubator.
>
> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread and
> the email addresses for their dev lists.
>
> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
>
> -dain
Dain,
This is great. +1 for the effort. I'd recommend bouncing this off the ASF board just in case there are issues
we're overlooking (I don't see any). The ASF doesn't generally solicit projects but I can't imagine anyone
having a problem with this proposal.
Bill
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
Nice...looks like a great plan.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
> should we proceed?
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The invitation
> letter would simply state our interest in having the project join
> Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the incubator.
> When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept the project and
> forward it to incubator.
>
> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread and
> the email addresses for their dev lists.
>
> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
>
> -dain
Re: [consolidation] next steps?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 Dain, thanks for helping this along. This is a good forward step.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Everyone seems very positive about consolidating the community. How
> should we proceed?
>
> I was thinking that it would be nice to send an invitation to the
> projects to join the Geronimo community as a subproject. The
> invitation letter would simply state our interest in having the project
> join Geronimo and if they accept, to prepare a proposal for the
> incubator. When the proposals are ready, we would vote to accept the
> project and forward it to incubator.
>
> The projects mentioned in the "Consolidating the community" thread and
> the email addresses for their dev lists.
>
> ActiveCluster - dev@activecluster.codehaus.org
> ActiveIO - dev@activeio.codehaus.org
> ActiveMQ - dev@activemq.codehaus.org
> ActivetSpaces - dev@activespace.codehaus.org
> OpenEJB - dev@openejb.org
> ServiceMix - dev@servicemix.codehaus.org
> TranQL - dev@tranql.codehaus.org
> WADI - dev@wadi.codehaus.org
> XBean - dev@xbean.codehaus.org
>
> -dain
>
>
>
>