On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> I think that is just engineering prudence. Take the example of a
> component that you might have a dependency. I see no problem with a
> PMC wanting to be informed about all changes to that component as well
> as all bugs found in that compon
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Perhaps I can help here.
>
> The root of all this, as I understand it, is an optional dependency.
> There is, of course, code that depends on the optional dependency.
> However, no one has mentioned any *source* code that is under an
> inc
Yes, I did presume that the case at hand involved incompatible licensing or the
source code could be used in the Apache project without any fuss. A Category B
Java Package dependency would be awkward but I presume surmountable.
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@op
I follow the exchanges with great interest.
To make a few things more clear:
- All Camel extra components are optional and we do not
deliver/release/deploy it with our normal Apache Camel releases (and we do
not plan to do this).
- As package name, we use org.apacheextras.camel.xxx
- As Maven grou
Sent from my tablet
On Sep 27, 2012 9:51 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
>
> Luciano's account identifies a clean, bright line between Apache Extras
and any Apache project.
>
> One point of clarification, however, since I see this statement
repeatedly.
>
> It is clear that an Apache Extras pro
Luciano's account identifies a clean, bright line between Apache Extras and any
Apache project.
One point of clarification, however, since I see this statement repeatedly.
It is clear that an Apache Extras project should not *deliver* packages or
components on any org.apache.xxx... clas
I'm replying to the original message as this thread seems to be taking
a different direction.
Based on the Apache Extras guidelines snippet below:
Projects hosted on Apache Extras are not considered official Apache
Software Foundation projects and they are also not associated, allied,
or otherwis
On 27.09.2012 13:26, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Perhaps I can help here.
>
> The root of all this, as I understand it, is an optional dependency.
> There is, of course, code that depends on the optional dependency.
> However, no one has mentioned any *source* code that is under an
> incompatible li
On 27.09.2012 12:34, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 11:01, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
>> On Thu, September 27, 2012 11:24, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> On 27 September 2012 10:17, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
So an additional binary package including e.g. your Hibernate
integration
and
Perhaps I can help here.
The root of all this, as I understand it, is an optional dependency.
There is, of course, code that depends on the optional dependency.
However, no one has mentioned any *source* code that is under an
incompatible license, such as modified sources of an LGPL component.
Th
On 27 September 2012 11:01, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
> On Thu, September 27, 2012 11:24, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 27 September 2012 10:17, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
>>> So an additional binary package including e.g. your Hibernate
>>> integration
>>> and a separate location in SVN/GIT where users can g
On Thu, September 27, 2012 11:24, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 10:17, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
>> So an additional binary package including e.g. your Hibernate
>> integration
>> and a separate location in SVN/GIT where users can get the sources are
>> OK
>> IMO as long as both are not p
On 27 September 2012 10:17, "Ulrich Stärk" wrote:
> So an additional binary package including e.g. your Hibernate integration
> and a separate location in SVN/GIT where users can get the sources are OK
> IMO as long as both are not part of your official source distribution.
This is not correct. T
I agree with Ross.
In my understanding the whole issue is a non-issue anyway. See [1]. You
are very well allowed to give users instrucions on how to obtain and
install OPTIONAL components to your main product that are dependent on
software with incompatible licenses. You are just not allowed to in
14 matches
Mail list logo
