lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Epheser <matthias.ephe...@indoqa.com>
Subject Re: 8 for 1.4
Date Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:00:17 GMT
Grant Ingersoll schrieb:
> Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't 
> know what else to propose.  Why don't we just hold it from this 
> release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and others 
> to submit their changes?  Perhaps by then Matthias or you or someone 
> else will have stepped up.
concerning GPL:

The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much from 
initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get their new 
code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was inspired by the still 
existing Apache License solrjs.

Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind of 
legal issues. So what do you think?

regards,
matthias
>
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
>
>> I just discussed this off-line with Matthias.  It does not look like
>> he has the time to give this much attention now.  (nor do I)
>>
>> We agreed that the best steps forward are to:
>> 1. Support the Drupal guys GPL port
>> 2. Archive the solrjs code to solrstuff.org
>> 3. Yank solrjs from apache svn (and 1.4 release)
>> 4. Add links to the drupal code (GPL) and the solrjs archive (Apache)
>>
>> Does this sound reasonable to everybody?
>>
>> ryan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Grant Ingersoll 
>> <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Forwarded with permission from Peter Wolanin on a private thread.
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Peter Wolanin <peter.wolanin@acquia.com>
>>>> Date: September 26, 2009 9:43:23 AM EDT
>>>> To: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: 8 for 1.4
>>>>
>>>> I talked to the guys reworking the JS library for Drupal at Drupalcon
>>>> - they are also having to fork potentially around license as much as
>>>> anything else, since they'd like to distribute via drupal.org, which
>>>> means they were hoping to get the original author to re-license the
>>>> code to them as GPL.
>>>>
>>>> -Peter
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh, this was meant for solr-dev.
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>>>>>> Date: September 25, 2009 1:34:32 PM EDT
>>>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: 8 for 1.4
>>>>>> Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Y'all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're down to 8 open issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseVersion.jspa?id=12310230&versionId=12313351&showOpenIssuesOnly=true

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 are packaging related, one is dependent on the official 2.9 
>>>>>> release
>>>>>> (so
>>>>>> should be taken care of today or tomorrow I suspect) and then we

>>>>>> have a
>>>>>> few
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only two somewhat major ones are S-1458, S-1294 (more on this

>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> mo') and S-1449.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On S-1294, the SolrJS patch, I yet again have concerns about even
>>>>>> including this, given the lack of activity (from Matthias, the 
>>>>>> original
>>>>>> author and others) and the fact that some in the Drupal community

>>>>>> have
>>>>>> already forked this to fix the various bugs in it instead of just
>>>>>> submitting
>>>>>> patches.  While I really like the idea of this library (jQuery is
>>>>>> awesome),
>>>>>> I have yet to see interest in the community to maintain it 
>>>>>> (unless you
>>>>>> count
>>>>>> someone forking it and fixing the bugs in the fork as 
>>>>>> maintenance) and
>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>> be upfront in admitting I have neither the time nor the patience
to
>>>>>> debug
>>>>>> Javascript across the gazillions of browsers out there (I don't even
>>>>>> have IE
>>>>>> on my machine unless you count firing up a VM w/ XP on it) in the

>>>>>> wild.
>>>>>>  Given what I know of most of the other committers here, I 
>>>>>> suspect that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> true for others too.  At a minimum, I think S-1294 should be 
>>>>>> pushed to
>>>>>> 1.5.
>>>>>>  Next up, I think we consider pulling SolrJS from the release, but
>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>> it in trunk and officially releasing it with either 1.5 or 1.4.1,
>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>> its gotten some love in the meantime.  If by then it has no love,

>>>>>> I vote
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> remove it and let the fork maintain it and point people there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D.
>>>> Momentum Specialist,  Acquia. Inc.
>>>> peter.wolanin@acquia.com
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>>
>>> Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) 
>>> using
>>> Solr/Lucene:
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>>
>>>
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids) 
> using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>


Mime
View raw message