On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments that
> > are not intended for inclusion?
> >
> > I can see on
Thanks for all the replies by the way. Definitely helping me
understand the other viewpoint (and try to poke holes :) ).
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know you can use the code to identify and fix the
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm
On Nov 6, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload
attachments that
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments that
> > are not intended for inclusion?
> >
> > I can see one
On 11/6/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments that
> are not intended for inclusion?
>
> I can see one very reasonable reason from a user point of view - the
> examp
On 11/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still confused - why do we allow people to upload attachments that
are not intended for inclusion?
I can see one very reasonable reason from a user point of view - the
example they want to upload is business related and so they want to do
On 11/4/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I notice that the current JIRA "attach file" form does not default
anything, and requires the submitter to choose explicitly the
copyright status for the submission. (I think this is a change from
previous behavior, and if so, a very welcome
I notice that the current JIRA "attach file" form does not default
anything, and requires the submitter to choose explicitly the
copyright status for the submission. (I think this is a change from
previous behavior, and if so, a very welcome change).
So it's now very clear that the user mus
On 11/2/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your comments. They seem to contradict what Henri is
saying. Can we continue this discussion until we reach some conclusion?
from a legal perspective:
"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state
othe
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your comments. They seem to contradict what Henri is
saying. Can we continue this discussion until we reach some conclusion?
Thanks,
Craig
On Nov 1, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 11/1/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that there is a
On 11/1/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that there is a checkbox in JIRA, and the fact that this is
confusing at least, could we get the checkbox removed, or the policy
documented?
The point of the checkbox is that if it's checked, you don't need to ask
further. That Bugz
Given that there is a checkbox in JIRA, and the fact that this is
confusing at least, could we get the checkbox removed, or the policy
documented?
Craig
On Nov 1, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On 11/1/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's best practice to require th
On 11/1/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's best practice to require that contributions be accompanied by
the checkbox to grant the license. I haven't seen any official Apache
policy guideline on this subject.
Given that Bugzilla doesn't have such a thing - it would seem that it
thanks, i'll pursue that
On 01/11/06, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's best practice to require that contributions be accompanied by
the checkbox to grant the license. I haven't seen any official Apache
policy guideline on this subject.
Is the contributor willing to re-attach t
It's best practice to require that contributions be accompanied by
the checkbox to grant the license. I haven't seen any official Apache
policy guideline on this subject.
Is the contributor willing to re-attach the file to the JIRA, this
time with the checkbox ticked? That's the best way to
If I am not mistaken, if it is a patch it is already handles by the apache license itself. If it
isn't a patch, I think it's best to ask for the granting specifically..
Mvgr,
Martin
kelvin goodson wrote:
Can anyone tell me if it's OK to put code into a sandbox that has been
attached to a JIRA
Can anyone tell me if it's OK to put code into a sandbox that has been
attached to a JIRA without granting ASF license?
Thanks
19 matches
Mail list logo
