incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:15:50 GMT

--- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir <> ha scritto:
> >> Also, the MPL license requires that we make our
> modified
> >> files available electronically for 12 months.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing this out.
> > This sounds pretty much unacceptable for Apache
> > policies and a good reason to avoid carrying such
> > code in our
> > repository.
> >
> I don't see the issue here.  Can you point me to what
> Apache policy is violated here?  Or argue how downstream
> consumer of our releases will be harmed or confused by this?

We never impose a condition such of "make your modified
files available electronically for 12 months". I surely
don't expect anyone doing a SVN checkout to have to do

> >>
> >> So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
> >>
> >
> > I do see a problem and unless some higher power from
> > legal@ OKs it, my vote for a release or project
> > graduation will be -1 (binding), on the basis that
> > if we do this once we will likely be perpetuating
> > such practice in all releases.
> >
> We already had this discussion before.  My impression
> was it was resolved.
> See:
In that same thread the situation is left mostly
unresolved. Ross in particular said:

"That is not my understanding. As far as I am aware
automated downloading of incompatible licensed coffee
is not acceptable."

Furthermore there is a specidif statement that we do
have to get the SVN tree clean of incompatible
licenses (I never manage to find that link when I
need it).
> In any case, there are no vetos on release votes.

It does mean legal or someone else will have to look
at it and solve it, which is what I am asking for.
Just thought I should save you from surprises later
on and avoid delays.



View raw message