Hi,
This was already discussed on members@ but others in my TLP community are
still not satisfied and want a more "public" discussion.
I think the main question is whether [1] is a policy document and
therefore satisfies the "stated otherwise" clause in this document [2].
The answer I got on memb
(Apologies if you get this twice. I'm having email issues)
Doug,
The thread on members@ was titled "Committer Qualifications". I asked a
question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that
committer voting does not have vetoes, and the document at [1] also seems
to say that.
The d
ug Cutting" wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> The thread on members@ was titled "Committer Qualifications". I asked a
>> question about the -1 vote on 9/7/13 and the reply I got was that
>> committer voting does not have vetoes, and th
On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> To me, agreeing on "the norm" is not the same as policy, especially
>>policy
>> that does not allow for exceptions.
>
>I agree. Establishing
On 10/2/13 11:11 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>On Oct 2, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> On 10/2/13 10:09 AM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
>>
>>>In my tour of the internet since my last post and your reply, it does
>> appear that most A
On 10/2/13 12:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I would like to propose a rewrite of [1] by borrowing heavily from [2]
>>but
>> making sure to emphasize that projects are allowed to have different
>>rul
On 10/3/13 6:23 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> On 10/2/13 12:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>>> Rather than a "rewrite", I suggest proposing small, incremental,
>>>revers
On 10/3/13 8:48 AM, "Joseph Schaefer" wrote:
>Good Lord man all you need to add is a one-sentence
>statement that personnel votes are consensus votes not
>procedural (simple majority) votes.
Hmm. Maybe I'm reaching too far, but my hope was to put in this document a
definition of consensus and a
On 10/3/13 9:51 AM, "Joseph Schaefer" wrote:
>The definitions are in a glossary somewhere, the more
>we denormalize the locations of our common understandings
>the harder it will be to maintain sanity over discussions.
OK, found the glossary. I will try to leverage it more in the next
revision
OK, here is my next offering. The patch form is at [1]
Some notes:
-This offering has 3 new entries to glossary.html as well.
-I was very tempted to move the Veto sections from Voting.html to Glossary
and merge the Consensus Gauging through Silence section from Voting into
Glossary.
-I am also t
ine a
default set of bylaws so projects don't have to, or have less to decide.
-Alex
On 10/4/13 11:25 AM, "Doug Cutting" wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> Who is permitted to vote is, to some extent, a community-specific thing.
>> Howev
Hi,
Someday I will get back to improving the Voting and Glossary pages, but
meanwhile, the Apache Flex PMC is still trying to construct a set of
bylaws and we are currently discussing whether there is a difference
between "Majority Approval" which is in the Glossary and "Lazy Majority"
which isn'
IMO, there are two problems:
1) We're trying to train folks to manage IP for their community but they
have to seek approval from folks are aren't as vested in their community.
My analogy is telling a new city council member: "Welcome to the city
council. For the next year all of your decisions wi
On 11/10/13 5:46 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>A summarized agreement with this thread:
>
>The bottom line, I think, is that _someone_ has to provide the
>supervision that the board delegates to a PMC.
>
>The virtue of the 'demolish the incubator' proposal is that it makes
>that point absolute
On 11/13/13 10:14 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>While a number of people have expressed a preference for the approach of
>electing more podling contributors directly onto the IPMC, in practice it
>remains uncertain whether the IPMC is capable of identifying, nominating
>and
>voting in enough c
On 11/14/13 9:07 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I still think that having a "Release Auditor" role provides backup for
>> getting incubator releases out without having folks have to be on the
>>
On 11/16/13 8:47 AM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>
>
>
>Alex,
>
>I'm not sure I see the difference between a release auditor and an IPMC
>member. If someone is sufficiently clued up to audit a release, then
>they're surely ready to join the Incubator PMC. Am I missing something?
To me, there is more re
On 11/17/13 3:17 AM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>
>With a two tier model - with PPMC membership granting voting rights on
>podling releases, then a podling would start with just mentors on its
>PPMC. If you clearly knew what you were doing, you'd get voted onto the
>PPMC pretty quickly, and thus you'd
On 11/17/13 10:38 AM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>
>Also, any ASF member can ask to join the Incubator PMC. So, "any ASF
>member" can technically review any vote, simply by sending an email to
>the Incubator PMC private list - so we have that situation already. I'd
>have no issue with members of other
FWIW, I've been saying that I might be interested in helping with IP
auditing of podling releases, but not in the larger role of IPMC member.
You're right that temporary and restricted IPMC membership may be less
work, but here's a larger proposal anyway:
1. Establish role of 'IP Auditor' ('Stewa
On 12/1/13 4:47 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of
>>release
>> steps are "optional" when they are required.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each PPMC m
On 12/11/13 9:51 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>I'm curious what others think. There's room for us to disagree, since
>release
>votes do not require consensus...
That's the part I've found curious. There's no whistleblower provision
for someone who thinks they see something that puts the fou
My understanding of the link I posted way back is that the source package
cannot contain compiled output that will be executed by the customer.
IMO, whether it is "external" or not doesn't matter. The JAR used by the
Compress tests is hopefully just data, not some part of its functionality.
On 12
I am not an expert, we only graduated a year ago. But I think there are
two rules in here:
1) Source archive must not contain compiled source code that is part of
the product's functionality. There is leeway on compiled source code
processed during testing. I think the board may pull your relea
Since we're still piling on, I just went to
https://forge-allura.apache.org/p/allura/
and was pretty sure I had been redirected to SourceForge. It look and
feel of that page looks like all of the other SourceForge projects like
the Open@Adobe sites I have visited. I would think that:
1) Apache
Apache
>projects to use as well).
>
>There shouldn't be any SourceForge branding or references on the Apache
>Allura instance, aside from the overall look and feel of the platform
>being
>similar, since it is in fact the same platform (though SourceForge does
>theme Allura
I asked this same question not too long ago. The answer I got back was
that the PMC voters would have to vote -1 in order to execute their duties
as stewards of licenses and IP. Thus folks are not concerned that some
core of folks who don't care could somehow get the votes for such a bad
release.
On 3/17/14 1:30 PM, "Rich Bowen" wrote:
>
>On 03/17/2014 01:05 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I'm not a branding expert. Has the Apache VP of Branding approved the
>> look? You are correct that the word SourceForge is not on the site,
>>but I
>> though
Despite having the best mentors one could hope for, it appears the Apache
Flex PMC missed one thing, which is that all SGAs needed to go through the
IP Clearance process. We did review the IP before it went into the repos,
but we did not fill out forms and get approval from Incubator.
Adobe has m
Hi James,
Welcome to Apache. I wish I could help more, but I mainly wanted to thank
you for going through all of this effort to get these files right. I'm
learning a lot from this thread, and I am as confused about the right
answer as you are.
But here's my guess: You are going to create a ver
The Apache Flex project currently uses builds.a.o and Jenkins to create
nightly builds. We are looking into creating a relatively-complex custom
CI setup on external servers with lots of different browsers involved in
automated testing of the nightly builds.
One of our PMC members wants to know i
Apache Flex received the BlazeDS code base from Adobe.
The IP Clearance document will eventually show up here when SVN pub sub
comes back up.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-clearanc
e/flex-blazeds.xml
Eager folks can probably see the copy in SVN or CMS.
Ple
Apache Flex received a donation of a collection of Flex-related website
and source code assets from Adobe Systems Inc.
More details below.
The IP Clearance document will eventually show up here when SVN pub sub
comes back up.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/content/ip-cl
Thanks for checking. Should be published now.
-Alex
On 4/21/14 6:27 PM, "Jake Farrell" wrote:
>Hey Justin
>Alex has not published (or attached) anything to that review so there is
>nothing public to be viewable yet
>
>-Jake
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Justin Mclean
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
Good catch. Answer's inline.
On 4/21/14 10:07 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Look good to me there's 2000 odd files that are Apache licensed and no
>file licensed in another way. There are a few .txt files missing a
>licence header but that's probably not an issue. There are however a
>cou
Also good catch. Answers in-line.
On 4/21/14 10:59 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This donation contains quite a few binary files (pdfs, gif, jpeg, even a
>coueple of mp3s) but not unusual give the native of the donation (mostly
>technical documentation and examples).
>
>There a few files w
No -1 votes were submitted so the code base is cleared for import. Some
adjustments were made to the code base as a result of a review of its
contents.
Thanks
-Alex
On 4/21/14 10:17 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Apache Flex received the BlazeDS code base from Adobe.
>
>The IP
No -1 votes were submitted to the code base is cleared for import. Some
adjustments were made to the code base as a result of a review of its
contents.
Thanks
-Alex
On 4/21/14 10:22 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Apache Flex received a donation of a collection of Flex-related websit
In the "Bundling an AL Font" thread on legal-discuss, sebb said:
"It is useful to mention all 3rd party inclusions in the LICENSE file,
including ones under AL2.0:
- Makes it much easier for the consumer to ensure that the code uses a
license with which they are comfortable.
- it helps the ASF pro
Apache Flex received the Radii8 code base from Judah Frangipane.
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/flex-radii8.html
Please vote to approve this contribution. Lazy consensus applies. If no -1
votes are cast within the next 72 hours, the vote passes.
Thanks,
-Alex
Good questions, I have asked the grantor about that one source file.
Maybe incubator folks with more experience can help answer these questions.
1) Regarding the package matching the grant. The code base granted was
not going to pass IP clearance. It needed headers and a proper LICENSE
and NOTIC
On 8/22/14 12:59 PM, "jan i" wrote:
>
>In my opinion you did the right thing, but I could not find the process
>you
>ran through documented.
>
>I would have liked to see a txt file, documenting
>1) that you changed the files, of course with permission
>2) which files you removed.
>
>Having done
Hi Incubator Folks,
My understanding is that changes to a website like flex.a.o don't require
a release vote, even though one could consider and html file pushed to the
site as publishing source beyond the group that owns it.
But what about web apps? Apache Flex is designed for creating web apps
Cancelling. Preparing new review based on feedback on this thread.
New lazy vote thread out soon.
On 8/22/14 4:28 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi
>
> 2) Regarding icons. The icons in question are common and trivial
>(">"
> and ">>" for 'more' and 'lots more', down arrow, etc).
>
>G
I have received more information from the grantor and updated the review
package.
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/flex-radii8.html
The review URL is the same. I removed the old zip of sources and replaced
it with the updated package. The updated package has a "2" on the end of
its file
Hi Justin,
Are you addressing me personally or Roman or the incubator in general?
-Alex
On 8/25/14 3:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The whole point point of the release process is to:
>1. Have legal overview by the PMC
>2. Engage and involve the community
>
>Why would we want to avoid e
72 hours passed without any objections. The code base has been cleared
for Apache Flex repos.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 8/25/14 2:29 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>I have received more information from the grantor and updated the review
>package.
>
>http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clea
I'd like to know: if a code base is donated to Apache under a Software
Grant, do most projects grant committer rights to the code authors at the
same time or do most projects require that the donors submit patches as
other non-committers normally do?
Thanks,
-Alex
---
In a past discussion about by-laws, some folks were adamant that voting
for new committer and PMC members be consensus votes so a single person
can block the adding of a candidate.
Do any projects use some form of majority voting for new committers? What
are the reasons for allowing vetoes?
Than
yone you know is
>interested (http://aka.ms/msopentechjobs)
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 8:57 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Code Donations and Committer Righs
>
>I'd like to kn
For more context, there has been only one prior donation from
non-committers to Flex and that was completed only 26 days ago. All but
one other donation has come from Adobe and are parts of existing Flex
products that Adobe provided before the transition to Apache.
-Alex
On 9/28/14 9:51 AM, "Jus
>I¹m also not sure what history you mean. The only donation that I know of
>that there was no follow through was the Swiz donation.
Also for context: The Swiz folks never submitted the software grant so
technically it hasn't been donated.
-Alex
--
Hi,
I’m wondering whether modifications to the set of bundled jars in a
convenience binary package can be made after release without voting.
And if not, I’m looking for any other quick-fix ideas for the following
scenario.
Flex has many different release packages. One is an SDK called FlexJS
0.
On 10/20/14, 4:13 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> I know we can’t go messing around with source packages without a vote,
>>but
>> what about binary packages? Is it against policy to do something like
>>
On 10/20/14, 4:57 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Justin Mclean
>wrote:
>
>> > 4) you aren't claiming that the artifact you created is an Apache
>>release
>> > and you are pointing some workshop participants at your release.
>>
>> My understanding is Alex does want t
On 10/20/14, 5:54 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote:
>
>Why not just roll your own installer that has these additional options?
>
>Then this is the Acme Software Foundation installer and you can do what
>you
>like.
I suppose we could, but it wouldn’t be easily found by folks who arrive at
flex.a.o lookin
, if you take the time to make a release nobody can veto it
>(although if there are good community reasons to not release you'd be
>expected to honor that).
>
>Ross
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:47
ple have verified
>the release) you would be good to go, without long debates about policy
>and intent ;-)
>
>Having said that it's always good to clarify things.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:4
On 10/21/14, 5:57 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
>The problem is that we lack a concise policy document. That's where the
>"ASF
>release policy codification proposal" as worked through on legal-discuss
>a few
>months ago is supposed to help.
>
> http://s.apache.org/aGm
> https://github.com/r
have an EOL.
>
> [Whether the EOL is LF or CRLF or CR is immaterial to this discussion.]
>
> Otherwise the files in the SVN tag aren't the same as the files in the
> source archive.
>
"Should" or "must"? Is this a release blocker?
[3] http://www.apache.org/dev
>>
>>>> The first item I cannot understand completely, the second one can be
>>>> resolved by adding BSD-like licensed files during build.
>>>>
>>>> So the question is why do you use non-standa
e to say, but I think we are conforming.
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-lice
nse
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gene
sn't have to be called out in the LICENSE file.
>
> BTW, file paths are incorrect in the LICENSE file.
Agreed. But not critical?
[5] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-notices
--
Alex Harui
Flex S
g/repos/asf/incubator/flex/utilities/trunk/installer
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Alex Ha
] http://markmail.org/message/ps3rjgv76vlw4sh5
[3] http://markmail.org/thread/ej4z47rr3ba532uv
[4] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Graduation+Resolution
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Is it ok to close this vote? It happened over the long holiday weekend in
the US and we only got five total votes, three from our mentors.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 11/22/12 11:57 AM, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
> +1 - binding
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Nov 21, 2012, a
resh Marru (IPMC)
+1 Christian Grobmeier (IPMC)
+1 Benson Marguiles (IPMC)
I will send an email to the Board asking to include the resolution in the
agenda for the next Board meeting.
Vote Thread Message ID: ccd30e35.48e5a%aha...@adobe.com
Thanks everyone,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe System
ut the legal stuff to get it
right. If there is a grey area, err on the side of caution or ask Apache
Legal. Yes, it is painful and slows you down, but usually, the same laws
also protect you.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
---
ues are considered 'i' and 't'. IMO, it was a good
lesson for our podling to see that we can get delayed by not getting the
LICENSE and NOTICE and other files right, so we had proper expectations set
for when we became a TLP. And IMO, because IANAL and nobody else in the
podli
statistical model is, but I would think of it the
same way.
The binary dist is just supposed to be a pre-compiled version of the source
dist.
>
> Can those be included in the source or binary dist or both?
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex
On 1/25/13 10:20 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/13 8:28 AM, "Chen, Pei" wrote:
>>
>>> I am actually glad that it is discussed here so that other podl
bad. I somehow missed that in the list of tasks to do. Flex should be
fixed now.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.o
On 6/16/13 10:36 AM, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
>
>On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Joseph Schaefer
>wrote:
>
>> This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
>>counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
>>themselves.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>The us
First, a disclaimer. This is just my personal take on things and no one
else on the Apache Flex PMC was involved in writing this.
As the PMC chair of a relatively recently graduated podling, I would like
to suggest that if you choose to implement "exit interviews" they should
probably be optional
Hi, As a newbie, I've generally quietly watched from the sidelines, but
now I'm jumping in.
+1 about "expectations" vs "rights". In fact, it occurred to me that a
booklet or pamphlet more like the "What to expect whenŠ" book would be
better. IMO, correctly set expectations make for happier peop
FWIW, my concerns about an Ombudsman are:
1) I had no idea what an Ombudsman was. I'd heard of it, but never had to
work with one before. I had to go look it up. If I had a complaint, I'm
not sure I would know to look up that word to find the email address to
complain to.
2) If you create a rol
On 6/21/13 7:12 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:22:00PM +0100, Upayavira wrote:
>> If, for whatever reason, they are unable or
>> unwilling to, you can ask on the incubator general list. If the optic is
>> too sensitive to discuss in public (eg a potential committer) you
On 6/21/13 5:58 AM, "Upayavira" wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 01:52 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>>
>> > As in any such survey, author identity should be optional. Sometimes
>>it
>> > can be deduced, but not always, and if someone woul
Just testing my own knowledge of this stuff:
A) isn't it true that if you are not the copyright holder or agent of the
copyright holder, you need some sort of paper or email trail giving you
permission to move copyrights?
B) isn't it true that there are cases where the copyright stays in the
file
On 7/30/13 12:50 PM, "Christian Grobmeier" wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> ...Bertrand was skeptical about an ASF-wide ombud, but didn't raise
>>>any objection
>>> to an Incubator-specific po
On 7/30/13 5:05 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>Bertrand, Christian, Alex,
>
>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> people should feel
>> free to contact people that they trust (IPMC members, mentors, ASF
>> members) privately if there's a need, and not having someone
On 8/2/13 9:36 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>> I think either the Champion or the Chair should do it. I have a slight
>> preference for the chair.
>> The champion is alrea
On 8/5/13 8:05 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> On 8/2/13 9:36 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>>>On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Christian Grobmeier
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 2
Hi everyone,
I would like to propose Flex to be an Apache Incubator project.
Here's a link to the proposal:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/FlexProposal
Thank you,
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/a
reate a project within Apache and use the "Apache Way" to
decide.
>
> It's exciting to see Adobe's willingness to contribute Flex to the ASF.
>
> Raju Bitter
> Software Architect & Open Source Evangelist
>
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I woul
ty representation on the initial
> committers list".
>
> Alex, does that work for you?
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional
I don't think there is much to stop someone else from
creating their own SWF player. So while the current reality is that these
SWFs only run in Adobe-owned players, I don't think there is a technical
reason for it.
>
> Raju
>
>> Hi everyone,
>&g
n principle it would be
> really useful to itemise these items so that we know what we are
> dealing with.
>
> Ross
>
> On 20 December 2011 09:02, Leo Simons wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> I would like to propose Flex
the Falcon topic, but it might be easier for
> you to reach out to Greg or Danny directly to see what the status is.
> If Falcon would be contributed to Apache before the work has been
> finished, that should be included in the proposal.
>
> Best,
> Raju
>
> 2011/12/21
ct has to take down SVN for others. And of course, the
question of disk space on the server. Similar for JIRA instances.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Hello,
Per advice from our Mentors, I have edited the text in the “how can incubation
run more smoothly” section of the Flex report for April.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
On 6/7/12 1:58 PM, "Greg Reddin" wrote:
> Hi Incubator,
>
> See the email below from Alex Harui. I need help figuring out what to do here.
>
> I'm not sure if Jeff was ever an employee of Macromedia or what the
> full situation is. Perhaps Alex can clarify i
y
source for convenience.
Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis by the PMC."
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
The Adobe legal team and Roy both agreed that
ement when acquiring Jeff and his company was such that
Adobe retained his company's copyright in the headers of those files.
Otherwise, the headers would have copyright to Adobe and would have just
changed them.
Thanks,
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/ah
ally an Adobe issue. Adobe does not own the copyright to
the files in question and therefore cannot agree to moving it, but Adobe did
have permission to donate the code. The individual involved is willing to
allow the copyright to be moved, and we asked here to find out how formal
the perm
On 6/8/12 11:36 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012 2:33 PM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>
>>> The individual involved is willing to
>>> allow the copyright to be moved,
t; Perhaps Robert deleted it by accident when doing graduation tidy up.
>
> Anyway i tried editing that page source and podlings.xml hoping
> that the CMS would regenerate it. No.
>
> Can someone help?
>
I think Rat became Creadur [1].
[1] http://creadur.apache.org/
--
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
>'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
>ICLA/CCLA,
>nothing could be further from the truth.
Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin re
On 9/1/15, 7:16 AM, "Emmanuel Lécharny" wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>is a code donation require a software grant signed from the employer of
>the people who wrote the code ? In other words, do we require that the
>employer explicitely allow the employees to work on some code ?
>
>M understanding is that
Apologies if I’m way off base here as I’m not familiar with Corinthia or
QT Editor. If Corinthia were to develop the web-based editor mentioned
upthread and make that the preferred/recommended editor for the project,
does that make the QT Editor optional enough for Apache?
Apache Flex is a UI To
1 - 100 of 262 matches
Mail list logo
