On 30/03/2010 5:00 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
On 30 Mar 2010, at 01:58, Mark Hammond wrote:
I understand that - however, the Windows issues are well known,
have existed forever and has never before been raised as a blocker
for a windows binary. If I knew it would be considered as such I
would not have invested any further efforts in Windows binaries
until the windows issues were resolved.
If you're happy preparing the binary, I am happy to call a vote on
it.
Great - it can be found at http://people.apache.org/~mhammond/dist/0.11.0/
...
As above, I have no interest in, or knowledge of the issues here,
so I will leave the honours to someone who does (or at least
someone who has enough grasp of this to consider it a problem.)
Actually, I think you're the only person with enough knowledge to
handle this. You're not expected to know anything about the law. The
purpose of the list is for people with the technical knowledge to ask
the people with the legal knowledge what the best way forward is. If
you start a thread on legal telling them how the Windows binary is
constructed, and asking them if that is okay, that should be all that
you have to do.
Sorry, but this needs to be undertaken by someone who actually believes
there is an issue and can articulate it. This person also needs to
understand the couchdb dependencies on any platform (Windows is no
different in this regard) and understands the concept of a "binary
release". While I meet the last 2 criteria, I don't meet the first.
So please let me be completely clear and explicitly decline for the 3rd
time :)
Cheers,
Mark
