>> yes, and my point is that if there is any question in your guys minds
>> on if it is allowed or not that is an issue for apache legal (via
>> jira) for a definitive answer
>>
>>
>
> so.. if you have a question for them.. go ping them.. no need anyone else to
> paraphrase it.. just go ahead and a
On 3/19/10 5:36 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
yes, and my point is that if there is any question in your guys minds
on if it is allowed or not that is an issue for apache legal (via
jira) for a definitive answer
so.. if you have a question for them.. go ping them.. no need anyone
else to pa
> This is not an issue of whether or not we can distribute these jars, (we
> can). It boils down to the _requirements_ of distributing them, i.e. the
> inclusion of license text and attribution notices as required.
>
> So long as we are properly documenting license and attribution, we can
> check a
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 10:15 -0600, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> > The binary release artifacts created by the `release' target in
> > build.xml, (they look something like
> > apache-cassandra-$VERSION-bin.tar.gz on the mirrors).
>
> actually I was asking about the problematic artifacts inside that
> d
> The binary release artifacts created by the `release' target in
> build.xml, (they look something like
> apache-cassandra-$VERSION-bin.tar.gz on the mirrors).
actually I was asking about the problematic artifacts inside that
distribution that were in question as to whether you could
redistribute
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 09:28 -0600, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> >> +1 to have your official 'distribution' contain everything needed
> to
> >> run
> >
> > It remains to be seen whether this can legally be done.
>
> sorry, I didn't see which artifacts would be problematic for this,
> could you call the
>> +1 to have your official 'distribution' contain everything needed to
>> run
>
> It remains to be seen whether this can legally be done.
sorry, I didn't see which artifacts would be problematic for this,
could you call them out?
apache legal has been very helpful on this in the past for maven,
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 10:13 -0500, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> imo the 'distribution' you produce should come bundled with everything
> you need to run it, it is very awkward to drop the distro on a bare
> box and then have to install ant just to bootstrap that distribution
> into a usable state
No o
imo the 'distribution' you produce should come bundled with everything
you need to run it, it is very awkward to drop the distro on a bare
box and then have to install ant just to bootstrap that distribution
into a usable state
+1 to use ivy to not park jars in svn
+1 to have your official 'distr
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 23:32 -0500, Paul Querna wrote:
> > Lack of java-devness showing: Can't the -bin tarball just include
> the
> > 'ivy-retrieve' step pre-done?
> >
> > At least then everyone will test the same -bin, significantly
> reducing
> > the lack of trusted path in problems 1 & 2.
> >
>
Paul Querna wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
During the 0.6 cycle Ivy was introduced to manage (most of) our
dependencies, and where possible, jars were removed from svn and no
longer included in binary release artifacts. Recently though this change
has been called into
On 3/18/10 8:21 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
During the 0.6 cycle Ivy was introduced to manage (most of) our
dependencies, and where possible, jars were removed from svn and no
longer included in binary release artifacts. Recently though this change
has been called into question, with some discussion ta
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>
>> During the 0.6 cycle Ivy was introduced to manage (most of) our
>> dependencies, and where possible, jars were removed from svn and no
>> longer included in binary release artifacts. Re
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> During the 0.6 cycle Ivy was introduced to manage (most of) our
> dependencies, and where possible, jars were removed from svn and no
> longer included in binary release artifacts. Recently though this change
> has been called into question, w
14 matches
Mail list logo
