That is a problem as well, however my problem is that it requires
endusers to acquire an additional license.
Ok. As long as it's clear that it's not a royalty-based license, that's all I'm attempting to clarify.
they don't "intend" to make it royalty-based. Thats really weak.
-- Sco
> Humm.. I'll read it again but thats not what I got out of it. It
> seemed to say that licenses will be available for the
> endusers and that we must inform them.
Yes. And that license is supposed to be royalty free. Thus, I have no idea how that
leads to Apache being a development subsidiar
Scott Cantor wrote:
No it says that your enduser of the Apache SAML library may
have to pay RSA for a license (or rather it doesn't say that they won't).
Uh, no it doesn't. It says quite explicitly (in the loose language of intent) that
they do *not* plan to charge. Or if that's not
clear, ple
This link to the "Contributor's Agreement (PDF)" does not work:
http://incubator.apache.org/forms/ASF_Contributor_License_2_form.pdf
"
missing-file
C:\ApacheUPD2\incubator-site\build\site\forms\ASF_Contributor_License_2_form
.pdf
"
Andreas
--
Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
i think forrest may turn out to be a wonderful "immediate value"
publication for lenya. we have been looking at ways to lower
the entry barriers into lenya, and having a well-supported
publication that works out of the box would be very sweet.
Hm. This is the kind of dicu
"Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FWIW, here's my +1 for Incubatorship. I see Lenya as tackling all the
> problems that Forrest would eventually encounter, if we ignored the
> blatant scope creep. It would be very cool if Lenya and Forrest were
> eventual
"Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FWIW, here's my +1 for Incubatorship. I see Lenya as tackling all the
> problems that Forrest would eventually encounter, if we ignored the
> blatant scope creep. It would be very cool if Lenya and Forrest were
> eventual
"Steven Noels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> I hope some of my points are not considered FUD but genuine concerns. I
> didn't happen to extensively comment on the other proposals going
> through incubation lately, since they weren't in the domain I'm working
> in, or have a particular interest in
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Sure thing. Since Lenya does publishing too, what is the future of
Forrest in your scenario?
To be honest, I am not very familiar with Forrest yet.
But from out of the belly I would characterize Forrest as a specific
publication type,
with an information architecture
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Paul Hammant wrote, On 21/02/2003 8.16:
Michael, Folks,
Dear Incubator List [...]
My take (not being on the incubator PMC) is that I'd like to see the
code. I want to see how componentized it is - I might like to use
some of the comps outside of Lenya or outside of
Steven Noels wrote:
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
You seem to be concerned that the software is *used* in productive
environments.
Do software developers who want to change the code have to take that into
account? Yes, certainly they should do that.
Is that an argument against the adoption of the softw
Steven Noels wrote:
Well, I can't be sure either. This is why we are going thru
incubation: it should be a period to estimate *IF* this codebase with
these people is the right seed for a potential healthy community.
If now, well, at least we tried.
Yeah. Since Incubation in itself is pretty new
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
[extensive snipage]
Steven Noels wrote:
You know how I run communities and what are the things I value. Michael,
who is the technical leader, resonates with my vision a lot and has been
playing very nicely with Cocoon.
Please, I don't see why you need to defend Michae
13 matches
Mail list logo
