Thx Mohammad!
We would have some more releases ready if the legal status of the
plugins is clear.
I hope we can resolve it soon.
Sebastian
2012/9/18 Mohammad Nour El-Din :
> Hi...
>
>From all the replies we got so far I don't see any legal concerns
> and hence I take my question/concern back
Hi...
From all the replies we got so far I don't see any legal concerns
and hence I take my question/concern back.
In either way, keep the good work OpenMeetings ;)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:52 PM, dsh wrote:
> Well I still opt to use Meta descriptors such as Maven POMs or CMake
> (probably
Well I still opt to use Meta descriptors such as Maven POMs or CMake
(probably only applicable for native projects) files in such cases
which would allow to generate Eclipse/IDE you name it specific files
once the sources has been obtained.
Cheers
Daniel
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:22 PM, sebb wr
On 14 September 2012 17:53, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like
> these?
>
> These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
> 'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they can't be
> licensed. And, even it wer
On 14 September 2012 13:57, Alexei Fedotov wrote:
> The most useful file containing the project classpath is only formatted
> automatically, it cannot be generated without project-specific knowledge.
>
> There is no techical problem to drop these files, yet developers who
> download our source rel
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
>I checked:
> - Mailing lists and from it the community looks active to a good
> extent both on the users and developers lists
> - Last report (June 2012) they were in the 'No Release' group of
> podlings but they managed to get
Hi Benson...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like
> these?
>
> These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
> 'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they can't be
> license
Does anyone seriously believe that IP notices are required in files like these?
These files cannot be copyrighted because they do not have any
'creative' content. If they can't be copyrighted, they can't be
licensed. And, even it were otherwise, the notices at the top of the
tree are sufficient. T
Well I think Maven allows to create both Eclipse and IDEA IntelliJ
projects including metdata artifacts such as .classpath files...
Cheers
Daniel
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Alexei Fedotov
wrote:
> The most useful file containing the project classpath is only formatted
> automatically, it c
The most useful file containing the project classpath is only formatted
automatically, it cannot be generated without project-specific knowledge.
There is no techical problem to drop these files, yet developers who
download our source release loose a useful code navigation tool without
these files
On Sep 14, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
wrote:
>
> But can we add ASL headers to files which are defined and considered
> to be, even structure wise (please correct me if I am wrong), under
> the license of Eclipse ?
>
If they are build artifacts (like stuff created by autoconf
for
Hi Daniel...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM, dsh wrote:
> @Mohammad: And btw, in reference to that big (blue) company, I'd say
> your statement is hearsay and needs to be proofed. For instance why is
> that very big (blue) company adding their own, proprietary license
> header to such generated
The more practical and pragmatic question to pose is: why would you
want to add license headers to generated files. You would have to take
care of that they won't disappear each time the file (e.g. .classpath)
is getting re-generated. Again from a practical point of view a
mentoring suggestion coul
@Mohammad: And btw, in reference to that big (blue) company, I'd say
your statement is hearsay and needs to be proofed. For instance why is
that very big (blue) company adding their own, proprietary license
header to such generated files and in one way or another even Java
files are Eclipse-generat
Hi Marcel...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
>> wrote:
>>> 14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
>>> написал:
One minor note:
- In
On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
> wrote:
>> 14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
>> написал:
>>> One minor note:
>>> - In [1] I noticed files related to Eclipse like .classpath and
>>> .project, I am not
Hi Alexei...
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Alexei Fedotov
wrote:
> Hello Mohammad, thank you for the review.
>
> Eclipse can be considered as an alternative build system, so these files
> are like build.xml files. Why not to keep them in release?
> 14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь "Mohammad Nour E
Hello Mohammad, thank you for the review.
Eclipse can be considered as an alternative build system, so these files
are like build.xml files. Why not to keep them in release?
14.09.2012 3:46 пользователь "Mohammad Nour El-Din"
написал:
> Hi
>
>I checked:
> - Mailing lists and from it the comm
Hi
I checked:
- Mailing lists and from it the community looks active to a good
extent both on the users and developers lists
- Last report (June 2012) they were in the 'No Release' group of
podlings but they managed to get a release out
- Their progress is not that fast but it is stable and ste
19 matches
Mail list logo
