On 16/04/2009, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Todd Volkert <tvolk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually, it occurs to me that since the distribution archives don't > > have the offending code, we should be able to release 1.1 as packaged > > (pending the vote), and if legal-discuss says that we need to remove > > that stuff from SVN, that can be done after the fact. > > > > -T > > > > > > I agree.
Disagree. There are rules as to what 3rd party dependencies are allowed. For example, LGPL dependencies cannot be included in distributions; furthermore, any such dependencies must be optional. That is not something that can be fixed later. See http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > These artifacts look ok to me now. Would be helpful to include RAT reports > for both the src and binary distributions next time. > > +1 > > > ...ant > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
