Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-04 Thread Josh Elser
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-04 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread Josh Elser
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread Josh Elser
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread sebb
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,

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread Josh Elser
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

Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-03 Thread sebb
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

[VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)

2016-05-02 Thread Josh Elser
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