On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:52 AM, sebb<seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> And I don't mean to imply that you are suggesting that a >> release should be blocked due to that. >> > > Not quite, but I am saying that the release should be blocked until > the LICENSE file either contains a copy of each different licence or > has a link to each different license.
Geez, what a thread, and like Bertrand I have not managed to read every detail of every opinion. So, although I agree that the pointers or full text should be available in LICENSE/NOTICE, I would approve a podling release IFF the change has been committed to SVN, i.e. a non-blocking, action-required item. If any 3rd party license information is missing in its entirety, then block. IMVHO, it is conflicts like this that makes Incubator work less fun... but that said, sebb, ant, others, I like your provenance of going through so many podling release efforts... Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
