incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ant elder" <ant.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] Request to release (revised) Tuscany M1
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:57:36 GMT
Is pulling this M1 release really necessary? I was under the impression that
right now it _is_ ok to be redistributing the NPL 1.1 licensed Rhino binary.
Back in August last year the ASF board Special Order 6B, Allow
redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables, was approved by
unanimous consent, see section 6b at
http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_08_17.txt

Cliff's proposed third-party licensing policy at
http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html is still only a proposal
isn't it? Even if it has now become ASF policy, it gives us one year to sort
out the Rhino licensing or to find a replacement. I did ask Cliff about this
specific issue back in March on legal-discuss, his reply is at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200603.mbox/%3cc5e632550603241427y1e563dbdh9b0507a7ddfe9b5a@mail.gmail.com%3e


Given all this I'd really like to at least get this M1 release of Tuscany
out now as is. We've tried real hard to make Tuscany easy for new users to
get started, requiring a separate rhino download would make it that little
bit harder.

   ...ant

Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> To be on the safe side, I'm going to propose that
> we remove the Rhino jar from the distribution and
> update the NOTICE files etc. with information for
> users on where it can be downloaded from and under
> what terms. Do we need another IPMC vote after such
> a change or is lazy consensus acceptable?
>
> --
> Jeremy

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message