I guess I don't understand. You think the PMC should vote to approve a release that only contains Squiggly?
My understanding of the legal-discuss thread is that we cannot. We have to bundle the code in some other release like the Flex SDK where it Squiggly's capabilities can be seen as an optional feature. I will ask for verification on legal-discuss. -Alex On 8/31/14 3:19 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >> The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not >>a >> separate file in the release artifact. > >It generated from the source and is in the release. > >> IMO, we can link to link AOO > >Which is exactly what we are doing in the RC. > >> Remember that the Flex SDK already has a category X dependency for the >> optional embedded font jars. The code that calls the category X jars is >> bundled in the one and only release artifact, but the code is set up >>such >> that those category X jars can be missing. > >Which is exactly what the Squiggly release candidate is doing ie you can >compile it even if the dictionary files are missing. > >> The mentors ruled that was sufficient because nobody "must" download >>the category X jars to >> successfully use the Flex SDK. > >And the Squiggly release candidate doesn't force you to to download any >category X jars (or in this case LGPL data). So again we are in >compliance.. > >> I would expect we would do the same for Squiggly. > >We are. > >> But if you want, we can ask on the legal-discuss thread. > >There is nothing that needs to be asked as the matter is resolved. Alex >if you think it's not please put it to a VOTE. > >If and when legal come up with a clear response we'll abide by that and >change if required how Squiggly is packackaged, or make it download LGPL >code. > >And can people please take a look at the RC to see if there are any other >issues we need to fix up. > >Thanks, >Justin
