On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > --- 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. >
Again, where is the policy issue? The category-b code is not in our released source packages. We're not imposing any extra conditions on downstream consumers. We're ensuring that the product can build and run without any category-b modules. So show me where the problem is. Remember, the category-b prohibition is for source packages. SVN is not our source package. A subset of files in SVN will comprise our source release. If you look carefully, you'll see that SVN, via the website stuff that is now there, has tons of content now that is in incompatible licenses, in the form of GPL and other licensed documentation. Ditto for the wiki. Ditto for extensions site. These are all hosted by the Apache, on behalf of the project, but they are not part of our releases. Are you saying SVN must be cleaned of all of that, even if it is not part of our releases? > >> >> >> >> 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: > You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. Robert is a member of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross. > "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. > I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can state what the policy issue is. I simply don't see any problem here. We're not including category-b source code in our release, period. -Rob > cheers, > > Pedro.
