But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't really
matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have an impact on
the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. So I think the
question got lost on legal-discuss. The "space of options"
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:04 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
> TLP-level releases from the Incubator itself. I see people wanting
> structure/policy/rules to ensure these TLP releases are done properly. And
> that some want to "fix
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:55 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
> I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
> in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
> rules.
>
I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
TLP-level
+1 to 2nd camp.
And even less requirements than have been suggested, I would offer. For
example: if the tarball is missing a LICENSE or NOTICE file? Who cares.
It's still a legal release. Just hard for downstream users to consume. But
they *can*. Nothing stopping somebody from trying out the tarba
I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
rules.
What I see is:
[1] David is saying (correctly) how Incubator is structured right now. He
hasn't expressed ~any opinions; it is just an interpreta
Thanks Roman!
+1 to the 2nd camp!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> A couple of thoughts:
>
> And a couple of thoughts on top of that.
>
>> Podlings are not permitted to cal
IMO, there's an actual test case going on right now. On 6/14, the Weex folks
asked about an LGPL dependency which became LEGAL-464. Personally, I think it
could be classified as a "runtime/platform" so that the CatX rules don't apply.
But they have been held up for 9 days and counting.
Who c
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> A couple of thoughts:
And a couple of thoughts on top of that.
> Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are
> not yet full Apache projects.
Correct. The I way I see this thread is this: *when it comes to
rele
Lets continue this discussion on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds like
> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t inspected
> the
Hi,
+1 (binding)
I checked the source release:
- signatures and hashes good
- incubating in name
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine
- all source files have ASF headers
- no unexpected binary files
There's one very minor issue in that LICENSE appendix includes " © Copyright
2018 The A
10 matches
Mail list logo
