On 4/14/2010 5:32 PM, sebb wrote: > On 14/04/2010, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> On 4/14/2010 4:22 PM, sebb wrote: >> > >> > Also, SVN is considered by some to be publishing code (e.g. links are >> > usually published on the web-site) so better safe than sorry. >> >> >> SVN is a development/work product area. Although now we have >> dist.apache.org/ >> which is, pretty clearly, a dist'ribution point :) The svn.apache.org/ >> space >> is definitely not a publication. > > Sorry, wrong word. It is a distribution however, at least according to Roy: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200907.mbox/%3c7a0220b7-5df1-4f4c-8c27-6ca8a175c...@gbiv.com%3e
Ah yes, that old debate :) From perspective of license files, they need to be there. >From perspective of a Release (and Releases are Published), it isn't, until >the PMC decides it is :) In the meantime, it is a Distribution, even if only to developers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
