sebb wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote:
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
I didn't mean to imply that. Just a passing comment on the 'official
release' phrase.
Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code checked
into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed software. Am I
misunderstanding this?
It depends on the exact license.
Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
and
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
+1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
member to make sure that we're violating policy.
e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
Hello,
Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we
cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has dependencies
which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
Gruss
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
