incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: PROPOSAL (was Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN )
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2012 08:45:41 GMT
As I have asserted before, in order to graduate AOO will need to discuss
this with legal@

My recommendation is to minimise the need to host category B source
wherever possible. Where it is not possible local policy needs to prevent
inadvertent contamination from copyleft provisions. I imagine permission
well be given in such circumstances. Where it is merely a convenience I am
less sure and thus legal@ guidance is required.

Clearly there is disagreement about when it is necessary and until someone
at legal@ examines this specific case we are at an impasse.

As a mentor I want to see this resolved before graduation. In the meantime
a release is allowable as-is.

Ross

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jan 18, 2012 2:26 AM, "Pedro Giffuni" <pfg@apache.org> wrote:

>
> --- Lun 16/1/12, Rob Weir ha scritto:
> ...
> > > the the Apache licensing policies:
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> > >
> >
> > That URL is for an earlier draft of the policy.  You
> > really should be
> > referencing the latest version of the policy here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
>
> I have looked at this and indeed this appears to be
> the definitive policy (the previous one was being
> revised every 6 months and gave lighter provisions
> for podlings). The definitive policy is much less
> clear than the draft but certainly doesn't seem
> to contradict it.
>
> Still there is no distinction between source packages
> and binary packages and it seems the principles in the
> draft still apply.
>
> Pedro.
>
>

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