incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
Date Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:20:51 GMT
El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 16:22 -0700, Upayavira escribió:
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> > 
> > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN
> > > repository is considered as distribution too.
> > 
> > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is
> > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike
> > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and
> > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not
> > even be part of the discussion.
> > 
> > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN
> > discussion for later.
> Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss.

I'd have him clarify, as an example, if correcting an error by deleting
some resources in trunk/branches/tags would be enough, even if the
offending items are accesible from specific revisions, or else surgery
of the repository would be needed in those cases where we are doing
unlawful distribution.

But definitely in the legal* thread, not here :) Note also that unlawful
distribution is not the same as Releasing against our policies. For
instance, a LGPL artifact can be against our policies, but we are
legally entitled to distribute it, so "rewriting the past" might not
really be needed.


> Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that
> anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute.
> However, we choose to apply a policy on top of this to our releases -
> which is that everything we distribute within a release must be
> compatible with the Apache License.
> Thus, when employ X of Y Corporation checks out a project from SVN
> containing an LGPL library, we have not breached anyone's copyright, so
> we can do it, yet to package that project while including that LGPL
> library would go against our AL compatibility policy, therefore we won't
> allow it.
> Of course, there is always a risk that non AL compatible stuff in SVN
> could sneak into a release, so having it in SVN should be discouraged,
> but it should not be banned.
> This seems to me to make a lot of sense. Of course, IANAL.
> Upayavira
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message