On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > My +0 means that i don't want to block on that vote. I'm uncomfortable to > > release a documentation that isn't totally under the apache 2 license > since > > I don't know what could be the impact on the distribution of it by others > > in their own projects. WHich is the point of using the apache 2 license. > > Now I guess it can be OK if we fix in next minor release. > > Right. I just kind of feel like maybe we should check this with Apache > legal, to make sure we're not doing anything exceedingly stupid here > which is entirely non-obvious to us non-lawyers. Is that crazy? > > We can do it that way. Or maybe it's easier to just fix it now. Which license are we missing right now? I gave my agreement last day but could be done in a more formal way until tomorrow if needed. Still the question is interesting ;) - benoit
