Costin Manolache wrote: >> >> Where is this policy defined? I'd really like a definitive statement about >> this from someone with the authority to make such a pronouncement :-) > > Good luck... > > Since I doubt this will happen - I'm inclined to just start using LGPL and > force someone to make an official decision ( like force the removal if it > is against a rule, or admit that LGPL is ok by lack of action ).
i recommend against pulling the board's beard in that manner. there are other alternatives beyond those you list that you might end up 'forcing.' deliberately tainting the repositories in order to find out if it's allowed might quite possibly result in fairly summary action. this is a *legal* issue; if it is determined that it is not allowable, not only will the offending code be yanked, but a very dim view will be taken of the person endangering the asf's own assets. i urge patience. fwiw, the issue of lgpl-covered code in apache-licensed repositories is not one that is being ignored. but neither is it a simple one that can be solved with an off-the-cuff decision. <board hat="on"> in fact, until such time as a clear determination is made, i'm ruling that it is *not* allowed. it is not worth the risk. so lgpl-licensed materials in the asf repositories are forbidden until a final decision is made. </board> that may seem heavy-handed and arbitrary; i apologise ahead of time, particularly if i turn out to be wrong. however, i am saying this in good faith and in an attempt to do what's right. i will welcome an official answer no less than anyone else. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
