d for bringing to an
>>> Apache Foo PMC?
>>>
>>> PPS: I assume we are talking about something other than how third parties
>>> use and attribute ALv2 licensed code one way or another. I'm not certain
>>> how trademark enters there. There is rel
mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 16:21
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
>
> Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a
for such allegations.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 16:21
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Our trademark is abused by LibreOffice. How do we find a policy where can get
Linux
; how trademark enters there. There is related discussion on legal-discuss,
>> however.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
re. There is related discussion on legal-discuss,
> however.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 14:35
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.
August 28, 2015 14:35
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: tradema...@apache.org; stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> (P
Again mixed. Let's substitute a real case.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> (Please note mixed private/public lists)
>
>> On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
>>
>> 1. The package description sh
/me notes the mixed public and private lists
>
> I.e. assume you're a developer or sysadmin who is *not* an Apache
> committer. You know you need to get a software project management tool
> for the linux machines you maintain, and you've heard of something
> called "Maven".
>
> - What is the actu
(Please note mixed private/public lists)
On 8/25/15 5:17 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
>
> 1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
> 2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
> significant devi
: Re: apache binary distributions
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical
> name usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread
So there is - to my mind - the obvious stuff:
1. The package description should ACK our marks. End of Story there.
2. The package description should call out those cases where there are
significant deviations from the "official" distributions. Significant
deviations will be determined by the indiv
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> But I am still awaiting guidance from brand on whether a technical name
> usage - e.g. installer package name - is a use of the mark.
Makes two of us. I see a log of good consensus on this thread which helps
me get a gut feel on what is t
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
> project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
> .jar?
This! This is such a great idea. Would love this to be weaved into
our policy (
On 22/08/2015 04:37, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Cool.
> I can't find info on "how much" it costs ASF, any pointers before embarking
> on 100+ artifact signing spree... ;-)
With my infra hat on...
The short answer is 'Don't worry about it and get signing.'
The longer answer is that if a project want
Cool.
I can't find info on "how much" it costs ASF, any pointers before embarking
on 100+ artifact signing spree... ;-)
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>
> > There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
> > project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing
> the .jar?
>
> Good idea,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
> project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
> .jar?
>
Good idea, but to be practical to users, the certificate for the signing
ne
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
> right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
> developers of the packaging system have the right to def
t is a pattern, that seems
like a good trigger for having a heart-to-heart with the producer of "Joe's
Maven" about clearing up the confusion.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 06:2
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2015, at 1:46, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
>
> Well I actually have concerns about the "maven" that debian is publishing.
> There are some quite significant - in my view - deviations from our Maven
Can you be specific? Should you perhaps take this up with the mav
There is a reason that these distributions are not called hadoop in the product
name. There is no cloudera hadoop. Nor MapR hadoop.
It is a fine line to acknowledge provenance and give proper credit but not
claim to be identical.
On the other hand, hive and pig and zookeeper in the distrib
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> ...Well I actually have concerns about the "maven" that debian is publishing.
> There are some quite significant - in my view - deviations from our Maven.
>
> For me, the majority of the concerns could be addressed if they fix the
> *Desc
Am 18.08.2015 18:46, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
So what if a project (members) does not vote but unofficially
releases binary executable packages, perhaps along with source to some
other location than /dist/? Clearly, it's not an official release by
We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
developers of the packaging system have the right to define who can use the
mark in relation to their packaging system only.
The aim here would be to make
I might add also that our integration tests should pass for patched
releases (if you want to call the package "maven")
Let's take this straw man out for a walk:
Microsoft produce a maven.msi and it is available for download on a page
called "how to get maven" on the Microsoft website. The install
Perhaps, the maven pmc could decree: if you are making a convenience
installer of maven for an OS where the maven pmc does not create a
convenience installer, you may use "maven" as the packaging name provided
the description clarifies it is a custom build and provides an ack of our
marks. Also the
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 02:47 Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes that was my analysis of the question: If I decide to produce an
> > unofficial binary release of Maven without the approval of the rest
I was indeed talking of publishing the original material, released properly
from Apache but with some minor changes to fit into the "Steve&Nick
Platform" (whatever that might be). I think that is analogous...
So, if we agree that is all the same... minor alterations of official
releases
That
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> However, if "Steve&Nick" are Apache project contributors publishing
> unreleased
> code and making an end run around Apache release policy, there's greater
> cause
> for concern.
>
On the other hand, if Steve&Nick are contributors publis
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Well, if "Debian" can publish their built Apache Maven as "maven" and
> "Steve&Nick" can't publish their built Apache Maven as "maven", then the
> inescapable question is; On what non-arbitrary grounds is one acceptable
> and the other is
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes that was my analysis of the question: If I decide to produce an
> unofficial binary release of Maven without the approval of the rest of the
> PMC, I may not call it Maven. If I did call it Maven th
t call it Maven. If I did call it Maven then the remainder of
the PMC would be responsible for sending me a C&D.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 09:46
> To: general@incub
f the (hypothetical) project.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 09:46
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> So w
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
> So what if a project (members) does not vote but unofficially
> releases binary executable packages, perhaps along with source to some
> other location than /dist/? Clearly, it's not an official release by Apache
> policy but there the bits are in
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han wrote:
> > There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
> > package in release, people are really would like to have one:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-
sh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 21:11
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
[ ... ]
> This thread is long and bendy. What is it that you want to achieve?
Three thi
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the
>> trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern
>> from the PMC. The f
On 8/16/15 9:05 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
>>> wrote:
>>>
> The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Ha
On 17 August 2015 at 09:53, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 17.08.2015 10:45, schrieb Branko Čibej:
> [...]
>
>> So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian
>> creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying
>> that's trademark infringement and we should
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> ...My take so far is: The PMC decides upon if they want to allow for that or
> not. So the Subversion PMC could forbid the redistribution of packages named
> subversion-x.y.z... But that does not mean they have to...
That's my understand
Am 17.08.2015 10:45, schrieb Branko Čibej:
[...]
So wait ... If the Subversion PMC releases source, and, say, Debian
creates a binary package called 'subversion-x.y.z' ... you're saying
that's trademark infringement and we should be telling all the people
who produce binary packages to stop using
On 16.08.2015 21:33, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>>> The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
>>> that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo
>> produce a
>>> release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
>>> > that corresponds to an Apache Ha
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Seems like for the past two weeks I only have weekends to respond :-(
> Apologies for the delay on this thread.
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>> > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come int
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> Now that takeaway from this thread for me so far is this: in order for the
> trademark enforcement to be invoked there has to be a legitimate concern
> from the PMC. The foundation is not in a business of blatant brand policing
> (otherw
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> > The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
>> > that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo
>> produce a
>> > release of Ba
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:30 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>> >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possi
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> > The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
> > that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release. Having project Foo
> produce a
> > release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the reservation,
> however.
Seems like for the past two weeks I only have weekends to respond :-(
Apologies for the delay on this thread.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play
>> at
>> > all. Instead, there are two things that happen.
On 8/9/15 9:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> The question is: do we have ASF-wide trademark guidelines or do
> we allow each PMC to make those as they go.
Um, yes, we do:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
Question: raise your ha
On 8/6/15 4:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact
>>> can
>> NOT
>>> be confused with the one coming from Apache projec
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han wrote:
> There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
> package in release, people are really would like to have one:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kylin-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKmQrOZ_MFUyF_y7HXE7iVMCfJHuuOFuU4T8ibsPWf
There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
package in release, people are really would like to have one:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kylin-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKmQrOZ_MFUyF_y7HXE7iVMCfJHuuOFuU4T8ibsPWfnw0z2Opw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
For some reason, people (e
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>>> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
>>> artifact or only those that PMC actually
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...do we aspire to have a monopoly on certain
> binary convenience artifacts? IOW, if a Hadoop PMC blessed and RPM
> as one of those artifacts, does it mean that only that RPM (however
> potentially screwed up it is from the standpoint of
On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
> >> artifact or only those that PMC actually care
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
> >> artifact or only those that PMC actual
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > Roman,
> >
> > That was a *really* long email.
>
> Well, I do those from time to time ;-)
>
> > 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play
> at
> > all. I
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Roman,
>
> That was a *really* long email.
Well, I do those from time to time ;-)
> 1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at
> all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is that the PMC
> appro
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
>> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
>
> IMO any object/binary created from our source co
Roman,
That was a *really* long email.
Some general responses.
1) The concept of a brand covering some artifact doesn't come into play at
all. Instead, there are two things that happen. The first is that the PMC
approves releases which defines each such release as an Apache release.
The second
Am 07.08.2015 02:50, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
The assumption that you're making is a reasonable one: only PMC is
authorized to make work available (which will mean that everything
else is derived work). That said, I'd appreciate i
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?...
IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly
identified as not coming from the ASF.
If Kerm
Then throw in an extra special case, Apache ABC making a release of Apache
XYZ ;-) Not common, but AFAIK, nothing but convention (go over and do it
in the name of XYZ instead) stopping that... But say XYZ has lost its PMC
and is destined for Attic, and ABC is in desperate need...
On Fri, Aug 7, 2
shnik
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2015 17:51
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: apache binary distributions
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[ ... ]
if PMC produced a release then binary convenience
artifacts are easy: anything that corresponds to that release *could*
be
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 06.08.2015 02:43, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
> [...]
>>
>> As you probably remember we've discussed this issue not that long time
>> ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/49852
>>
>> The consensus there is that
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
>>
>> NOT
>>>
>>> be confused with the one comin
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
> NOT
>> be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
>
> I think the "problem" lies in Tradema
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> >> Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one
>> of
>> >> the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes maven
>> >> artifacts out of
Am 06.08.2015 08:22, schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
I think the "problem" lies in Trademarks. Debian's Tomcat7
Am 06.08.2015 02:43, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik:
[...]
As you probably remember we've discussed this issue not that long time
ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general/49852
The consensus there is that as long as you're communicating intent
clearly you can let downstream dev
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I honestly see no problem with that, again provided that the artifact can
NOT
> be confused with the one coming from Apache project.
I think the "problem" lies in Trademarks. Debian's Tomcat7 is labeled
"Servlet and JSP engine" and its To
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> >> Let us put that last part a step up... Let us assume someone takes one
> of
> >> the released sources of one of the java projects out there, makes maven
> >> artifacts out of it and publishes them at maven central. Is that ok? I
> mean
> On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>
>>> It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to
>>> maven central is not allowed. I guess i
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 03.08.2015 21:46, schrieb David Nalley:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point
>>> with
>>> regards to binary distr
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>> It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to
>> maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are
>> basically to be handled as nigh
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> It was also mentioned here, that for example publishing snapshot builds to
> maven central is not allowed. I guess in the release document they are
> basically to be handled as nightly builds and as such not for the general
> public, thus
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> ...It was pointed out, that a binary
> distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release
> itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache.
> This seems to be one motivation for the asf
Am 03.08.2015 21:46, schrieb David Nalley:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Hi all,
some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with
regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
distribution of a source code release has to
sorry, I really tried, but it seems google is not a suitable tool to
search through the incubator general list. It shows by far not all
results it should show. There is a hint that some results are not shown
because of privacy protection. Searching for my own name for exmaple
shows only a singl
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with
> regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
> distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release
> itself,
OK, I’ll bite. Do you have links to where you got this information?
-Alex
On 8/3/15, 2:55 AM, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point
>with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary
>distribution of a
82 matches
Mail list logo
