qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Godfrey" <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuous Build Server. Was: NEED HELP: getting the trunk back in order
Date Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:04:57 GMT
The only issue is the credit which AntHill may/may not require and where it
needs to be placed.  If it is on an apache web site then we need some sort
of official OK.  If this is a requirement of the AntHill license then we
need the OK on this before we move from evaluation of AntHill to actual

-- Rob

On 09/03/07, Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. is AntHill offering a license for any of the contributors to run a
> > continuous build against the apache subversion project?
> > 2. is there any restriction on the number of continuous build systems
> thus
> > set up?
> > 3. if individual contributors / organisations take wish advantage of
> such a
> > license, is the qpid community as a whole happy to credit AntHill in the
> > manner required.
> > 4. finally even of the Qpid community is happy to credit AntHill, is
> Apache
> > happy to allow Qpid to do so
> The licence they gave us allows contributors pretty much free reign,
> so long as it is used to produce OS software only.
> No restriction on the number of systems. 999 users, 999 build agents.
> I'm assuming Apache is happy for us to use it, as I say, Geronimo have
> set the precedent already. Have not made any official enquiries
> towards Apache yet though.
> As you point out, the build server and build system are seperate.
> There is absolutely no need to check the AH config files into the
> source respository at all. Using it does not force anyone interested
> in using/building qpid to use AH.

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