On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Under the same conditions, yes.
>
Thanks, we will proceed with the release.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Under the same conditions, yes.
> On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time
>> exception is warranted.
>
> Cool, except that I will note that Toree is in
PIng? Can I get a confirmation that you are OK with Toree proceeding
under similar circumstances? They are actively working towards a
release.
If you like, I can open a legal JIRA or move this to legal-discuss.
- Sam Ruby
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016
On 2/19/16 6:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a
disclaimer in the release notes
Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we
require a men
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a
> disclaimer in the release notes
Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we
require a mention in the DISCLAIMER file that incubating rele
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time
> exception is warranted.
Cool, except that I will note that Toree is in the same situation, and
is preparing a release. I would hope that that request would be OK
I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time
exception is warranted.
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
>
> I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with
> the proscription against mandatory LGPL dependencies for Apa
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>> Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in
>> legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-
I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with the
proscription against mandatory LGPL dependencies for Apache releases.
Clearly the podling is well aware of the need to replace the LGPL dependency
before graduation. And I agree with Greg that a podling learning the
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in
> legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A
Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in
legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A2B%40jaguNET.com%3E
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Greg Ste
Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a
disclaimer in the release notes. The Incubator process is about tracking
these down, and getting them fixed. Incubation releases are not expected to
be *fully* conformant to all ASF policies, especially if there is a known
p
Hi,
Apache Mynewt [1] is moving towards making it’s first release.
We found that one of the libraries we depend on, viper which is MIT licensed
[2], in turn depends on a library that is LGPLv3 licensed (go-yaml) [3].
It is intended to replace the viper/yaml libraries with ones comparable with
13 matches
Mail list logo
