On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/OSS > > materials. Why would the Foundation want to be against that? If it is > > labeled properly, then ... roll with it. > > It often isn’t labelled properly. There’s a reasonable risk that some of > what would be placed there and distributed isn’t actually F/OSS. And what would be the blowback of something on our server with incorrect information? Very little. Mostly, we'd just move on. Maybe we delete it. > I can point you to several example of this. I’m not sure how the incubator > (or the board) would feel about that risk, so that would be something we > would be need to consider further. Also Welp. Then I will pose that question, rather than this endless pontificating about "risk". > while Jane and John may be fine with that, a lot of companies that use > Apache releases may not be. > I already acknowledged that. Many people could use software regardless of its licensing. The license typically only matters in *redistribution* scenarios. Things like the AGPL affect *usage*, but that is very, very atypical. I'd think 99% of downstream could use our software, even with gummed-up licensing. > > You're conflating *learning* with *releases*. These can be handled > separately. > > How exactly? You're saying that releases are the control point to learning. I say just let the releases go. You want to teach? Then you can use the releases like "that wasn't good. next time: do A and B". Over time, releases will get fixed. But the IPMC should not have to manage the releases. Cheers, -g
