Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser:
See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Which is why it
Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser :
> See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
> the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
> manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Which is why it is not built or
Bernd--
See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
ready
Hello,
the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
ready for release (beside we do not want to?)
I dont think we should burden such structural and long standing changes
onto a voluntary release manager given the 2.0 had the same structure.
Gruss
Bernd
Am Tue, 3 May
sebb wrote:
+1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
> member to make sure that we're violating policy.
It would be easy to_ensure_ a violation ... !
Since sandbox is not ready for release, for the purpose of getting a
VFS release out it should be moved to a
On 3 May 2016 at 18:04, Josh Elser wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
>>>
>>> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>>
>>
>> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
>> with the AL,
sebb wrote:
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
I
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser wrote:
> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
Depending on
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code
checked into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed
software. Am I misunderstanding this?
e...@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
Hello,
Agree, the sandbox profile should