--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> ha scritto: ... > > >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our > modified > >> files available electronically for 12 months. > > > > Thank you for pointing this out. > > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache > > policies and a good reason to avoid carrying such > > code in our > > repository. > > > > I don't see the issue here. Can you point me to what > Apache policy is violated here? Or argue how downstream > consumer of our releases will be harmed or confused by this? >
We never impose a condition such of "make your modified files available electronically for 12 months". I surely don't expect anyone doing a SVN checkout to have to do that. > >> > >> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we: > >> > > > > I do see a problem and unless some higher power from > > legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project > > graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that > > if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating > > such practice in all releases. > > > > We already had this discussion before. My impression > was it was resolved. > See: http://markmail.org/message/2o42tzsw24z5znst > In that same thread the situation is left mostly unresolved. Ross in particular said: "That is not my understanding. As far as I am aware automated downloading of incompatible licensed coffee is not acceptable." Furthermore there is a specidif statement that we do have to get the SVN tree clean of incompatible licenses (I never manage to find that link when I need it). > In any case, there are no vetos on release votes. > It does mean legal or someone else will have to look at it and solve it, which is what I am asking for. Just thought I should save you from surprises later on and avoid delays. cheers, Pedro.
