As I have asserted before, in order to graduate AOO will need to discuss this with legal@
My recommendation is to minimise the need to host category B source wherever possible. Where it is not possible local policy needs to prevent inadvertent contamination from copyleft provisions. I imagine permission well be given in such circumstances. Where it is merely a convenience I am less sure and thus legal@ guidance is required. Clearly there is disagreement about when it is necessary and until someone at legal@ examines this specific case we are at an impasse. As a mentor I want to see this resolved before graduation. In the meantime a release is allowable as-is. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 18, 2012 2:26 AM, "Pedro Giffuni" <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > --- Lun 16/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto: > ... > > > the the Apache licensing policies: > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > > > > > > That URL is for an earlier draft of the policy. You > > really should be > > referencing the latest version of the policy here: > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > > > > I have looked at this and indeed this appears to be > the definitive policy (the previous one was being > revised every 6 months and gave lighter provisions > for podlings). The definitive policy is much less > clear than the draft but certainly doesn't seem > to contradict it. > > Still there is no distinction between source packages > and binary packages and it seems the principles in the > draft still apply. > > Pedro. > >
