gstein67

7 ms·

1.
by gstein67 4y ago
it is Twilio, yup! ... and backed by a custom flask app, using yaml files to define/organize the menu structure.
2.
by gstein67 7y ago
And we save money by relying on GitHub's excellent tools, rather than wasting it, trying to recreate or stand up a similar platform. The communities wanted closer integration with GitHub (what they knew/used elsewhere), so we made
3.
by gstein67 7y ago
That is simply not true. Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Apache maintains clones of all our GitHub org's repositories. GitHub has no leverage over our repositories. We have a fallback mechanism for contributors to push
4.
by gstein67 7y ago
Correct. We are pragmatic-focused. The communities asked for better integration with GitHub, so we provided it. (nothing to do with non/copyleft licensing regimes) Mind you, we maintain private mirrors and have restrictions on some of
5.
by gstein67 7y ago
The communities asked for GitHub integration.
6.
by gstein67 7y ago
It is definitely better-served. It was the communities asking for GitHub access/integration. So we provided it. -- Greg Stein
7.
by gstein67 7y ago
Not to us here at Apache. We wanted the GitHub tools to be available to our projects. Why try and recreate all that on our own? Waste of resources. The ASF is for creating software for the public good; having a great version control tool we
8.
Apache is hiring for DevOps/SysAdmin(s.apache.org)
2 points by gstein67 8y ago|0 comments
9.
by gstein67 9y ago
Exactly. You'll be using the React code under the BSD license but without any patent grants.
10.
by gstein67 9y ago
Yes, it works just fine. Many projects at Apache rely on MIT-licensed code, and I know that several of the Apache projects are looking towards Preact as a replacement for their dependency upon React.
11.
by gstein67 9y ago
Of course you can sue them. It just comes with consequences.
12.
by gstein67 9y ago
Note that this only applies to projects from the Apache Software Foundation. Its policies do not affect outside projects, including those using the ALv2. After August 31, no Apache projects can make a release that has a hard dependency&#x
13.
by gstein67 9y ago
"everyone else but you" would no longer be an OSS license.
14.
by gstein67 9y ago
Correct. Once released under an OSS license, that cannot be revoked. They can change/restrict the license on future releases, but you can also choose an older release, which uses the more favorable OSS license.
15.
by gstein67 9y ago
Right. This is the notion that BSD provides an "implicit" patent grant. Legal scholars are debating it, and there is no court precedent. ... but it is likely a more permissive grant than the explicit grant provided by BSD+PATENTS.
16.
by gstein67 9y ago
The ASF does not want downstream users to be caught by more restrictions than those of the ALv2. The BSD+Patents licensing imposes more restrictions; thus, Apache projects cannot depend upon software under that license. This is pretty clear
17.
by gstein67 9y ago
There is a lot of confusion with regards to one point: the Apache Software Foundation did not make a request for a license change. The Foundation does not presuppose to know how others should license their products. That is those others&#
18.
by gstein67 9y ago
The two copyright-based licenses are compatible, based on pretty much every legal opinion published. Facebook is offering a separate patent license, and that is out-of-scope of the GPL.
19.
by gstein67 9y ago
With patents, it is usually best to not show your hand. Patent holders never publish the list of patents that read on their software.
20.
by gstein67 9y ago
Just say one, for discussion purposes. One is likely worth the (minimal?) loss of Goodwill/combinatorics/bundling with their licensing choice.
21.
by gstein67 9y ago
That is not entirely true. As stated elsewhere, there is likely an implicit patent license provided by the BSD. The reasoning is basically, "we are [copyright] licensing this cod e to you to use, so [therefore] we must also be providin