Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of gwyn.evans@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.174 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=iHYwM6f1TZvkcpdwua9ZomT7bc7U7LfXv9YRSXEYNo34NNvTVI2A+tS/TjmJGiUToTEwJAJvtwgt+AG8tCtR7MecjosoUz2FrHxKa/EUhSkIJ0tmYlvHmicS6EEVZqA1ieBWkqipNFFnQkZHSk3HpTX9Ha2RPS7uwbW1v/zwrUA=
Message-ID: <c0312f5d0607301205k267ed5e5jc09c9093f6646b6a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:05:33 +0100
From: "Gwyn Evans" <gwyn.evans@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e0607300958o7fec47ebo6fa497c65d470c7b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44C79027.4090506@odoko.co.uk>
	 <20060727130206.GJ91300@bali.sjc.webweaving.org>
	 <918312fe0607270704i3b4e1232l300b8da22ecab71@mail.gmail.com>
	 <94C8244B-A314-4736-8444-FEE81D15FA37@SUN.com>
	 <5c902b9e0607300958o7fec47ebo6fa497c65d470c7b@mail.gmail.com>

On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> > > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a release, and
> > > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
> > > apache?
> >
> > "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an
> > issue, since the Apache license is very permissive.
>
> Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket (if that's the name you
> decide on), and as a matter of policy, I'd frown upon such
> 'backporting' behavior.

No need, the intention was to stick with the "Wicket" name for the 1.* releases.

> The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our
> SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL
> (I think) and posted it to java.net.  In two words, "Uh, no."

No, but not really equivalent, as we're already using the Apache licence.

> - All new development comes to the Incubator.  We expect no more
> 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF.  For example, SA
> continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes.  SA 3.x
> was developed here at the ASF.  This is my concern with Celtix and
> XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be
> released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features.

 I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
1.x stream would go into maintainance, which might be more restrictive
than planned...

> - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists
> here, while development discussions around previous versions need to
> stay where they are now.  (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x
> releases on our lists.)
>
> - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can
> get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development
> discussions on older releases happen here.

 Hmm, no /discussions/ about making releases from elsewhere seems
somewhat extreme, but I guess it's your ball, as it were.

When you say "Incubator lists", are these really Incubator-specific
such that they'd require user re-registration upon exit, or do you
just mean Apache-hosted lists?

/Gwyn

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org