Sorry. I've been Reply-All'ing.
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, "C. Bergström"
> wrote:
>> Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else?
>
> I'm not sure what the question is, but it doesn't seem like a question
> for board@
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström wrote:
> We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this. How
> to best proceed? Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something
> else?
>
Why? What are you looking for? And who is the expected audience?
Again, I have
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, C. Bergström wrote:
> On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to "verify"
>> something in the GPLv2?
> No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights
> granted under th
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM, "C. Bergström"
wrote:
> [System lib exception was of course brought up during the BSD discussion,
> but it was said that system libraries are usually shipped by default with
> the system. This may not always be the case with STDCXX.]
In order to best answer this
On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to
"verify" something in the GPLv2?
No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights
granted under the contributor agreement to another open source foundation.
On 09/13/12 11:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx
is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs
cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2
is
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx
> is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs
> cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2
> is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all th
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> DESCRIPTION
>>>
>>> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
>>> a "rationale" for moving the project els
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström wrote:
> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> DESCRIPTION
>>
>> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
>> a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
>> stdcxx under a different license.
