On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
>
Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his
interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our
source code repositories,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher wrote:
> It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
> offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
> declaration attached to the project.
>
No, the license is that which was granted by the author, a
It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
declaration attached to the project.
This makes sense to me, presuming that we still agree that the license
declaration (header or license file) is the best
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
that adapt it to the environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
fine thing for them to call it simple A
On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
> >
> > >It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented
a
> > >'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> >It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
> >'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
> >ICLA/CCLA,
> >nothing could be further from the
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
>'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
>ICLA/CCLA,
>nothing could be further from the truth.
Committers sometimes make mistakes. IIRC, Justin re
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> Coming in late.
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really
have never read something so stupid or ill phrased...
Every contributor commit
AFAIK a SNAPSHOT has not been voted on and is therefore not a formal
ASF release.
So for example this would cover CI builds that deploy jars to the ASF
Maven SNAPSHOT repo.
On 20 August 2015 at 23:33, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald
> wrote:
>> So wh
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
> ‘releases’ that are on our official mirrors right now?
>
> (Because they would have been voted on as a ‘’release’’ for the projects to
> put them there in the first pl
> On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Coming in late.
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
>
Interesting.
So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
‘releases’ that
are on our official mirrors right no
Pardon me from jumping in but... Roman's original question was:
>
>
>
> *For example, what would be the legal basis for stopping a 3d party from
> releasing a snapshot of ASF's project source tree and claim it to be a
> release X.Y.Z of said project?*
>
So he was asking about someone taking what
On 8/20/15, 9:26 AM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
>However, a quick search reveals that there are precisely zero
>occurrences of the word 'release' in version 2.0 of the Apache
>License.
>
>So, I don't know what Jim meant by 'licenses kick in at release', but
>my view is that putting source in a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Coming in late.
>>>
>>> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
>>> release.
>>
>> Are you
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Coming in late.
>>
>> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
>> release.
>
> Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a
> LICENSE fil
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Coming in late.
>>
>> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
>> release.
>
> Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a
> LICENSE fi
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Coming in late.
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a
LICENSE file at the top, I would think that this counts as a legal
'publication'
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
release.
There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
can declare something as a release.
> On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> while answering a question on release policie
You can't generalize from a single sample.
I see the pattern of email addresses with varying amounts of numbers in
them, some of them also very long, every year with GSoC students.
Uli
On Thu, August 20, 2015 00:32, sebb wrote:
> The recent spammers have used quite unusual e-mail addresses, with
19 matches
Mail list logo
