incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gavin" <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
Date Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:18:56 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Upayavira []
> Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try)
> 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.
> Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that
> anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute.

Are you talking about trunk, or release tags/branches ?

SVN in my opinion is a place where we place code to work on collaboratively
, it's a developer resource - anything in there is subject to being broken
code-wise, documentation-wise and for short bursts may contain 3rd party
jars and items without appropriate licensing. Acceptable I think, until some
volunteer dev cleans it up.

I do not agree that anything in svn is distribution, the same as snapshots
and nightlies are not (supposed to be) advertised to joe bloggs the user,
but jane bloggs the dev being on the dev list will know where to get her
hands on it.

And now I just read the bit about sparing svn discussion for later, oops.


> 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