On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>... >>> You can look at the archives back in 2006 when it was incubating. In >>> particular, there is one sent to private@incubator that I would refer >>> you to: >>> http://s.apache.org/c04 [only usable by ASF Members] >>> >> >> Didn't that get subsequently revised by Cliff et al into "Incubating >> projects must not distribute an official product release that includes >> works covered by an excluded license" - >> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#transition-incubator > > Dunno. That link is for a draft document, and has been replaced by a > final/resolved form (see link at top of page). > > Regardless... Jukka posted recently, and I'd look to his note for > "current policy". I think his statement puts Incubator policy a little > more relaxed than ASF, but likely not as relaxed as I would have > posited (in regards to dependencies). >
The good thing about release votes is that they can't be vetoed so regardless of what policies may or may not be documented whether or not a release vote passes is just down to getting enough people to vote +1. Votes on general@ often stall and require a respin when someone claims something is wrong which puts off others from voting. Something as basic as a dependent license missing from the LICENSE file would be one of those things that in the past would have always demanded a respin, so the change, and it is a change, to allow wiggle room is what i hope people will remember from this. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
