Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Under the same conditions, yes. > Thanks, we will proceed with the release. -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

Under the same conditions, yes. > On Feb 19, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time >> exception is warranted. > >

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

PIng? Can I get a confirmation that you are OK with Toree proceeding under similar circumstances? They are actively working towards a release. If you like, I can open a legal JIRA or move this to legal-discuss. - Sam Ruby On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Sam Ruby

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On 2/19/16 6:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a > disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we require a mention in the DISCLAIMER file

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time > exception is warranted. Cool, except that I will note that Toree is in the same situation, and is preparing a release. I would hope that that

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time exception is warranted. > On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > > I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with > the proscription against

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: >> Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in >> legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal >>

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with the proscription against mandatory LGPL dependencies for Apache releases. Clearly the podling is well aware of the need to replace the LGPL dependency before graduation. And I agree with Greg that a podling learning the

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in > legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal > >

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A2B%40jaguNET.com%3E On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Greg

Release dependant on LGPL

Hi, Apache Mynewt [1] is moving towards making it’s first release. We found that one of the libraries we depend on, viper which is MIT licensed [2], in turn depends on a library that is LGPLv3 licensed (go-yaml) [3]. It is intended to replace the viper/yaml libraries with ones comparable with

Re: Release dependant on LGPL

Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a disclaimer in the release notes. The Incubator process is about tracking these down, and getting them fixed. Incubation releases are not expected to be *fully* conformant to all ASF policies, especially if there is a known