corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: Proposal editor development framework.
Date Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:49:23 GMT
On 29 July 2015 at 22:39, Dennis E. Hamilton <>

> 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.)
That is new to me (as IPMC member). We did do a IP clearance earlier, and
passed. Of course EVERY release is controlled of which libraries we use.

For the first release, I anticipate (but being only one of many PPMC I
cannot say) that we will not release all of trunk, I aim at releasing only
docFormats, which sort of makes your point a bit strange.

> 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 policies.

> 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 with.
My english cannot cope with what you imply here.

>  - 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
> To:
> 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.
> [ ... ]

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message