Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> >> > Yes, because it is the RM as an individual that ultimately builds and >> > publishes the release as an official Apache release on behalf of the >> > ASF. >> >> Absolutely not. > > Right, I know I should have put the PMC in there, too, sorry I left it > out. I understand that this is a very important legal distinction and > that the RM is just the messenger/agent of the PMC when it comes to > releasing software for the ASF.
More like a go-fer :) Until the PMC votes to release software, it's not an Apache release. > >> > True. But we're not talking about just anybody. If a member of the >> > Derby community does put together a release candidate (that would need >> > to report itself as a GA version) and publishes it on a website for >> > others to vote on, then the community could be held responsible. >> >> For what? > > For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as > creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the > idea that we couldn't publish a GA version of Derby that had JDBC 4.0 > bits in it. Although it appears we've now determined that Derby has no > obligations with regard to these agreements as to when it can do a > release. Until it's an Apache action, the JSPA doesn't matter, because those people aren't signatories of the JSPA. Sure, there is some grey area here, such as because the ASF has a public repository containing JSR implementations-in-progress - but as we work under a bona fide open source methodology, everyone understands that isn't "distributing"... geir
