corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Proposal editor development framework.
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:39:01 GMT
While Corinthia is in the incubator, all releases, once approved by the project, must be reviewed
and approved by the Incubator PMC.  

For the first release there will be great scrutiny on IP provenance in the source code.  It
is then expected that a mechanism to continue having clean IP provenance will be sustained
throughout incubation and into the future whenever Corinthia becomes a Top-Level Apache Project
(TLP).  This scrutiny also includes dealing with the presence of third party software, or
dependence on third-party software, essential to use of a built version of the software. 
(There is no problem with tools used to build the software, so long as they don't impose license
conditions on what is built.)

Part of the reason for incubation is to provide a learning curve for the new project with
respect to how ASF projects operate and the basic principles and, in some cases, specific

It is not at all unusual that there will be some deconstruction of natural inclinations and
suppositions when the constraints on being an Apache Project are encountered and then dealt

 - Dennis

PS: There is not scripture or holy writ anywhere that compels successful open-source projects
to be Apache Projects.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kelly [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 10:17
Subject: Re: Proposal editor development framework.

One other thought on the issue of Qt: I think we need to be careful to balance the goals of
getting to a functioning reference implementation, and ensuring that we have an app that can
be built without depending on any LGPL libraries. Actually I thought the whole point of LGPL
was that you can use it in applications under any circumstance, and only need to distribute
any changes to the library itself. This is the first instance in which I’ve been aware that
it carries other obligations (which I’m still confused about).

Right now I think the discussion has turned too far towards the latter licensing issue. We’re
here to build great software (or at least, I am) - that’s the goal, everything else is in
support of that. Yes, we do need to ensure that anything that we mark as part of the “core”
(non-optional) part of the codebase can be built by depending only on Apache-licensed code
or operating-system libraries.

But to be honest, I see this issue as a block on development. If we get too caught up in religiously
following rules at the expense of development speed, we put the project at risk - either by
taking to long to eventually get something done, or potentially alienating new or existing
contributors. [ ... ]

View raw message