On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They > are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive, > if you offered a patch set and said "hey, this is the difference between > the ASF's 2.2.4 and my binaries here", then his point would be spot-on and > we'd all agree there is no issue.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here, and what points jive or not. > I couldn't find the argument for releasing our *candidates* on > external sites from Colm's observations. Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with AL2.0, just like our svn trees. It says so right there in them, and we're pretty familiar with that the AL permits. If someone wants to take our candidates and put it on another site, they are plainly free to do so. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
