You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> on 2002/10/24 14:43:00 UTC
[VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
This is a proposal to move commons-launcher to Commons Proper.
The Launcher component contains, as its name implies, a powerful Java
application launcher, configured through XML. It is designed to abstract
native operating system "features" which hinder portability when dealing
with complex applications.
It is currently used in Tomcat 5, and included in the Tomcat 5.0.0
milestone.
The component seems mature feature and stability wise.
<ballot>
+1 [ ] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
-1 [ ] No, because:
</ballot>
In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
commons-launcher be made available.
<ballot>
+1 [ ] Yes.
-0 [ ] No, because:
</ballot>
I am willing to act as the release manager.
Remy
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in
sandbox?
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
At 17:34 24.10.2002 -0400, you wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
>
> > Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> > has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> > bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
>
>Except the sandbox is published online in a view-cvs. Does this constitute
>a legal publication of code? Does it need to be sufficiently licensed?
I don't think view-cvs matters because the code is also accessible
through anon-cvs. The real question is whether we are violating any IP
laws. For example, if committer xyz places code belonging to some big
corporation without permission, that corporation can sue Apache. The
fact that the code is publicly available through Apache makes it
obviously worse. The sandbox could be warez if no one ever checked,
actually that is true for all Apache projects, not just the sandbox.
If you think of it, the release restriction of the sandbox does not
really protect the ASF in case of litigation.
There are many ways of violating IP law. The ASF makes every effort in
ensuring that it complies with existing laws. It trusts contributors
to only submit code to which they are legally entitled. The
contributor agreement plays an important role in this. It is attached
for your reference. AFAIK, all committers are required to send it to
the ASF secretary at the time their commit access was granted.
>Is it okay for it to be unlicensed just as long as it's not licensed or
>copyrighted to someone other than Apache?
>
>Should the ViewCvs contain some kind of note saying that all code is
>copyright Apache unless otherwise stated?
That would not be legal. If it were, we could for example put Windows
XP in CVS and declare that it is ours to distribute free of charge.
>I'd like to make a statement that isn't a question, but can't think of
>anything :)
Unanswered questions seem to be an inherent part of IP law.
>Hen
--
Ceki
TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by John Keyes <jb...@mac.com>.
Yeah I'd say it is disturbing, I just wanted to highlight that
the anonymous CVS access is not the only means of getting
sandbox articles. Most of the discussion on this list with
regards to this topic has been "What do we need to do to the
source code to make it legal", judging from what I've read on
reorg we need to a hell of a lot more to make it so.
-John K
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:39, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2002, John Keyes <jb...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Some of the sandbox code is actually distributed as well.
>
> I'm pretty sure that storing it in a public CVS repo legally is
> "distributing". One of the reasons that we (and the XML folks) have
> been hunting and deleting jars in CVS.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
John Keyes <jb...@mac.com>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 25 Oct 2002, John Keyes <jb...@mac.com> wrote:
> Some of the sandbox code is actually distributed as well.
I'm pretty sure that storing it in a public CVS repo legally is
"distributing". One of the reasons that we (and the XML folks) have
been hunting and deleting jars in CVS.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by John Keyes <jb...@mac.com>.
Some of the sandbox code is actually distributed as well.
For example jelly is distributed to ibiblio's maven
repository. There's talk of setting up mirrors of this
repository also. I am sure there are others that are also
stored there.
-John K
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:20, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
> All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
> I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
> to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
> code in there..
> The plus if I don't do this, is that daemon will probably be able to be
> compliled ;))
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 04:15, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > I will take care of that..
> >
> > Mvgr,
> > Martin
> >
> > On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 01:13, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> > > >>> should be fixed.
> > >
> > > If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
> > > ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
> > > I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
> > >
> > > Pier
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
--
John Keyes <jb...@mac.com>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 15:39, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
> > All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
> > I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
> > to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
> > code in there..
>
> Siemens code? Unless by "waivers" you mean a signed document on file
> with the ASF, I'm getting scared.
That is what I mean..
See :
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons-sandbox/daemon/src/native/nt/moni/vdmoniadm.c
for the file it is just an author tag, but could imply that code was
ported from siemas-fujitsu or something..
Especially after messages on the
> reorg list from Roy last night. See reorg-get.1075_1076@apache.org for
> the two messages I'm referring to.
I know, I wanted to get this clear.. ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
>
> regards,
> michael
>
> --
> Michael A. Smith
> mas@apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
> All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
> I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
> to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
> code in there..
Siemens code? Unless by "waivers" you mean a signed document on file
with the ASF, I'm getting scared. Especially after messages on the
reorg list from Roy last night. See reorg-get.1075_1076@apache.org for
the two messages I'm referring to.
regards,
michael
--
Michael A. Smith
mas@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Hmm I didn't actually know where I was getting into ;)
All the java code looks ok, but the native doesn't..
I think some of the current maintainers of daemon are better candidates
to this change and also handle the necessary "waivers" for the siemens
code in there..
The plus if I don't do this, is that daemon will probably be able to be
compliled ;))
Mvgr,
Martin
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 04:15, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> I will take care of that..
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 01:13, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> >
> > >>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> > >>> should be fixed.
> >
> > If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
> > ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
> > I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
> >
> > Pier
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
I will take care of that..
Mvgr,
Martin
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 01:13, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> >>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> >>> should be fixed.
>
> If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
> ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
> I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
>
> Pier
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
>>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>>> should be fixed.
If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
>>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>>> should be fixed.
If it's stuff I wrote (as most of the daemon AFAICR), well, then stick the
ASL version 1.1 on it and I'm going to be fine... Sorry, my fault, sometimes
I forget the usual copy-and-paste...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
i suppose that really this should be a matter for the jakarta pmc. i have
a feeling that the apache members are very strong about the contents of
public cvs since it exposes them to (possible criminal) liability. how far
should things be allowed to go in the sandbox?
- robert
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:30 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
>
> At 22:08 24.10.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>> should be fixed.
>>
>> i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>>
>> to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the code. this
>> may actually make the problem worse since whoever did the modification
>> couldn't be sure that the ASF actually had copyright over the code. it
>> would have to be the original committer.
>>
>> i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible for
>> the component and ask them either to add the correct copyright notice or
>> remove . what's the right way to do this? post the the commons-dev list?
>> or to the general list? or direct to the the committers themselves?
>>
>> i suppose the proper thing to do would be to remove the files from cvs.
>> i legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the
>> immediately and then let the component committers put them back in once
>> they have proper copyright notices. it would feel a bit rude to remove
>> them before giving the committers a chance to correct matters but it
>> might be the proper course of action.
>>
>> ideas? opinions?
>>
>> - robert
>
> --
> Ceki
>
> TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
> others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Ceki [iso-8859-1] G�lc� wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
Except the sandbox is published online in a view-cvs. Does this constitute
a legal publication of code? Does it need to be sufficiently licensed?
Is it okay for it to be unlicensed just as long as it's not licensed or
copyrighted to someone other than Apache?
Should the ViewCvs contain some kind of note saying that all code is
copyright Apache unless otherwise stated?
I'd like to make a statement that isn't a question, but can't think of
anything :)
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
i suppose that really this should be a matter for the jakarta pmc. i have
a feeling that the apache members are very strong about the contents of
public cvs since it exposes them to (possible criminal) liability. how far
should things be allowed to go in the sandbox?
- robert
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:30 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
> has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
> bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
>
> At 22:08 24.10.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>> should be fixed.
>>
>> i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>>
>> to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the code. this
>> may actually make the problem worse since whoever did the modification
>> couldn't be sure that the ASF actually had copyright over the code. it
>> would have to be the original committer.
>>
>> i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible for
>> the component and ask them either to add the correct copyright notice or
>> remove . what's the right way to do this? post the the commons-dev list?
>> or to the general list? or direct to the the committers themselves?
>>
>> i suppose the proper thing to do would be to remove the files from cvs.
>> i legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the
>> immediately and then let the component committers put them back in once
>> they have proper copyright notices. it would feel a bit rude to remove
>> them before giving the committers a chance to correct matters but it
>> might be the proper course of action.
>>
>> ideas? opinions?
>>
>> - robert
>
> --
> Ceki
>
> TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
> others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.
> org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.
> org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in
sandbox?
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
Isn't the whole point of the sandbox the ability to play? If someone
has not put a copyright on their code while playing, we should not
bother them but let them continue to play undisturbed.
At 22:08 24.10.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
>should be fixed.
>
>i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>
>to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the code. this
>may actually make the problem worse since whoever did the modification
>couldn't be sure that the ASF actually had copyright over the code. it
>would have to be the original committer.
>
>i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible for the
>component and ask them either to add the correct copyright notice or
>remove . what's the right way to do this? post the the commons-dev list?
>or to the general list? or direct to the the committers themselves?
>
>i suppose the proper thing to do would be to remove the files from cvs. i
>legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the immediately
>and then let the component committers put them back in once they have
>proper copyright notices. it would feel a bit rude to remove them before
>giving the committers a chance to correct matters but it might be the
>proper course of action.
>
>ideas? opinions?
>
>- robert
--
Ceki
TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from
others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
--
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by Scott Sanders <sa...@apache.org>.
> <ballot>
> +1 [x] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
--
Scott Sanders - sanders@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [Z] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> I am willing to act as the release manager.
>
+1 ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by jsdever <js...@sympatico.ca>.
+0
>
> > +1 [ ] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> > -1 [ ] No, because:
BTW: What happened to the +0 and -0 voting options that are part of the charter?
OT: Mabye we should have a little voting webapp to help keep all voing
consistant, log votes, generate results ... to simplify the voting process.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by Juozas Baliuka <ba...@centras.lt>.
+0
----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <re...@apache.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
> This is a proposal to move commons-launcher to Commons Proper.
>
> The Launcher component contains, as its name implies, a powerful Java
> application launcher, configured through XML. It is designed to abstract
> native operating system "features" which hinder portability when dealing
> with complex applications.
> It is currently used in Tomcat 5, and included in the Tomcat 5.0.0
> milestone.
>
> The component seems mature feature and stability wise.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> I am willing to act as the release manager.
>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
Any sanity checks needed on the current code (have win2000 and linux)?
Mvgr,
Martin
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 14:43, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> This is a proposal to move commons-launcher to Commons Proper.
>
> The Launcher component contains, as its name implies, a powerful Java
> application launcher, configured through XML. It is designed to abstract
> native operating system "features" which hinder portability when dealing
> with complex applications.
> It is currently used in Tomcat 5, and included in the Tomcat 5.0.0
> milestone.
>
> The component seems mature feature and stability wise.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> I am willing to act as the release manager.
>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
+0 on both.
Craig
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:43:00 +0200
> From: Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
>
> This is a proposal to move commons-launcher to Commons Proper.
>
> The Launcher component contains, as its name implies, a powerful Java
> application launcher, configured through XML. It is designed to abstract
> native operating system "features" which hinder portability when dealing
> with complex applications.
> It is currently used in Tomcat 5, and included in the Tomcat 5.0.0
> milestone.
>
> The component seems mature feature and stability wise.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [ ] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> I am willing to act as the release manager.
>
> Remy
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, robert burrell donkin
<ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible
> for the component and ask them either to add the correct copyright
> notice or remove .
This seems to be the most polite way to do it and I'd try that route
before changing anything myself.
To quote Roy Fielding:
,----
| On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@apache.org> wrote:
|
| In prior decisions, the board of directors has approved the
| distribution of BSD-based or MPL 1.1 open source code as part of our
| projects, provided that the license terms are adhered to strictly.
| Any new code, however, must be under the Apache License and
| copyright ASF.
`----
Assuming the code you are talking about is "new code", there isn't any
choice but either add the Apache License or remove the code.
> i legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the
> immediately and then let the component committers put them back in
> once they have proper copyright notices.
Probably yes.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote on
25/10/2002 07:08:58 AM:
> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> should be fixed.
>
> i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>
> to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the code. this
> may actually make the problem worse since whoever did the modification
> couldn't be sure that the ASF actually had copyright over the code. it
> would have to be the original committer.
>
> i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible for
the
> component and ask them either to add the correct copyright notice or
> remove . what's the right way to do this? post the the commons-dev list?
> or to the general list? or direct to the the committers themselves?
>
> i suppose the proper thing to do would be to remove the files from cvs.
i
> legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the
immediately
> and then let the component committers put them back in once they have
> proper copyright notices. it would feel a bit rude to remove them before
> giving the committers a chance to correct matters but it might be the
> proper course of action.
>
> ideas? opinions?
+1 on contacting the committers with a timeout option for removal.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
> should be fixed.
>
> i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
>
> ideas? opinions?
Post to the commons-dev, and cc to each developer in the PROPOSAL of the
project?
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
what's the right way to deal with unlicensed code in sandbox?
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
there are files in daemon which appear to be missing license files. this
should be fixed.
i'm wondering: what's the right way to do about this?
to me, it doesn't feel right diving in there and changing the code. this
may actually make the problem worse since whoever did the modification
couldn't be sure that the ASF actually had copyright over the code. it
would have to be the original committer.
i suppose there should be an attempt to contact those responsible for the
component and ask them either to add the correct copyright notice or
remove . what's the right way to do this? post the the commons-dev list?
or to the general list? or direct to the the committers themselves?
i suppose the proper thing to do would be to remove the files from cvs. i
legal terms, the safest course of action is probably to do the immediately
and then let the component committers put them back in once they have
proper copyright notices. it would feel a bit rude to remove them before
giving the committers a chance to correct matters but it might be the
proper course of action.
ideas? opinions?
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] commons-launcher promotion
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 01:43 PM, Remy Maucherat wrote:
<snip>
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes, move commons-launcher to Commons Proper
> -1 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a first 0.9 beta release of
> commons-launcher be made available.
>
> <ballot>
> +1 [X] Yes.
> -0 [ ] No, because:
>
> </ballot>
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>