stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: New committers?
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:06:51 GMT
If Christopher is interested in moving, then, to be frank, then
I expect him to do whatever work is required to move it, including
any legal legwork. This is esp true since his whole reason
for moving it is, as I mentioned, completely bogus.

My concern is to try to make it a success here.

On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.
> 
> Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested
> in moving the project somewhere else. See for example:
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3C4DFAE25E.9040703@pathscale.com%3E
> 
> I would also like to know what the options are.
> 
> Martin
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor<msebor@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<msebor@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>>>> My input below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push
the
>>>>>>>   stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and
that
>>>>>>>   sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should
consider
>>>>>>>   re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision
for
>>>>>>>   the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do
not
>>>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the
rest of
>>>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one,
it
>>>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to
give up
>>>>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>>>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>>>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>>>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
>>>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
>>>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
>>>> such derivative works."
>>>> 
>>>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
>>>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
>>>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
>>>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
>>>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
>>>> GPLv2...
>>> 
>>> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
>>> asks (IIUC)?
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message