I agree with Doug. We don't need explicit disclaimers. We can encourage them however to mention it somewhere appropriate.
thanks, dims On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Upayavira wrote: >> >> Exactly. I was writing something much the same. We could even require >> TLP projects that have incubating dependencies to include a statement in >> their releases to that effect: "Should any of our incubating >> dependencies fail incubation, we (the TLP) will take responsibility for >> that code so as to continue supporting our users." > > -1 Do we require similar disclaimers when we depend on BSD licensed code > from SourceForge that one guy wrote and that hasn't been updated in a year? > Outside of legalities, it's up to each PMC to decide whether a dependency > is a good for its project. Sometimes the best solution isn't a great > solution, but it might be better than no solution at all. If a project > depends on something that dies, then it has to decide whether it can live > without it, reanimate it, use something else, or whatever. We don't > otherwise mandate back-compatibility from one release to the next. Back > compatibility is a very good way to maintain a community, but it's not > absolutely required by the ASF. > > Doug > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
