good question, and probably one for legal-discuss.
It seems that most of the time deleting from svn is enough, although
that's not a definitive statement!
Upayavira
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> We have a situation with CloudStack where we have some jars that we do
> not
We have a situation with CloudStack where we have some jars that we do not
know our distribution rights. If it turns out that we do not have the right
to distribute them (Apache compatibility aside) what course of action
should we take?
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> Note, po
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 13:42:04 +0100:
> This is something I recall from clarifications by Roy some while back -
> made a lot of sense to me. I'm not aware of it being documented
> anywhere, nor am I aware of it having been collectively agreed. If we
> can work out where,
www.apac
This is something I recall from clarifications by Roy some while back -
made a lot of sense to me. I'm not aware of it being documented
anywhere, nor am I aware of it having been collectively agreed. If we
can work out where, I'd be happy to write it up.
Upayavira
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 01:35 PM
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 13:26:00 +0100:
> Note, podlings are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
> perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
> I see it, check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* one (i.e. it
> is not and should no
Note, podlings are free to check in IP that is dubious from a *policy*
perspective (i.e. incompatible with Apache License), but should not, as
I see it, check in anything that is dubious from a *legal* one (i.e. it
is not and should not be public, or we don't have *any* rights to
distribute). While
Okay, thanks. :)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Podling frequently check in dubious IP as part of initial imports, and
> then clean up HEAD later. I've never seen any evidence of a more
> thorough extirpation.
>
>
Podling frequently check in dubious IP as part of initial imports, and
then clean up HEAD later. I've never seen any evidence of a more
thorough extirpation.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For a
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying!
Upayavira wrote on Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:30:56 +0100:
> Here's my take:
>
> As I see it, anything that goes into SVN we need to be sure we have the
> _legal_ right to redistribute, regardless of any compatibility or
> otherwise with the Apache License (e.g. G
Hi,
just wanted to add what I have learned during Stanbol incubation:
The ASF releases source code, only. The repo should contain only the
sources - and no binary code (JARs) at all. This is fundamental to the
idea of open source. Once you start hosting binaries the users can not
be sure what the
Here's my take:
As I see it, anything that goes into SVN we need to be sure we have the
_legal_ right to redistribute, regardless of any compatibility or
otherwise with the Apache License (e.g. GPL in our repo is not a
disaster).
It is a _policy_ decision of the ASF that anything that goes into A
Thanks. :)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> If you've not released it and you've deleted it from HEAD of all
> branches, I think you're fine.
>
> Noah Slater wrote on Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 23:09:45 +0100:
> > Okay cool.
> >
> > My root concern was that we have non-OS data i
If you've not released it and you've deleted it from HEAD of all
branches, I think you're fine.
Noah Slater wrote on Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 23:09:45 +0100:
> Okay cool.
>
> My root concern was that we have non-OS data in our repository. But if you
> think that's an academic concern (i.e. we've not
Okay cool.
My root concern was that we have non-OS data in our repository. But if you
think that's an academic concern (i.e. we've not released it, so it doesn't
matter) then okay.
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote on Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 22:50:48 +0100:
Noah Slater wrote on Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 22:50:48 +0100:
> In relation to the non-OS jars, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>
> I am currently downloading them from the repository history.
>
If it's just one developer who does it in his own personal builds of
HEAD, builds which don't leave his personal
David Nalley just added:
They have all (to my knowledge) been removed.
> Some were under VMwares SDK license, which does permit some redistribution
> in certain cases, others were under the NetApp SDK license for which I am
> unaware of the terms but it was posted to the list some time back.
Th
In relation to the non-OS jars, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
I am currently downloading them from the repository history.
Presumably he is doing this because he knew of their existence before they
were removed (they were part of the original import from Citrix), and finds
it convenient to snag them e
To clarify, are you saying that people download jars directly from
version control history? Where do they find the references to their
existence there?
Noah Slater wrote on Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 22:41:53 +0100:
> Hey,
>
> It came up on the CloudStack list that we have non-OS (I don't know the
> s
Hey,
It came up on the CloudStack list that we have non-OS (I don't know the
specific license, but I can find out if it's important) jars in the
repository, and some people (at least one) is downloading them from that
location for convenience.
Obviously, we're not going to ship them, and we can c
19 matches
Mail list logo
