Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8318BBB0 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 75729 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2012 00:23:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75580 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2012 00:23:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 75571 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jan 2012 00:23:12 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vw0-f47.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username robweir, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:23:11 +0000 Received: by vbip1 with SMTP id p1so838720vbi.6 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:23:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.90.171 with SMTP id bx11mr72240vdb.26.1326414190957; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.5.195 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:23:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1326395750.63194.YahooMailClassic@web113513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:23:10 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries) From: Rob Weir To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 13 January 2012 00:09, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Ross Gardler >> wrote: >>> On 12 January 2012 23:50, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Ross Gardler >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 12 January 2012 19:28, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>> You were looking for an opinion for Apache Legal. =C2=A0Robert is a = member >>>>>> of Apache Legal Affairs, not Ross. >>>>> >>>>> This is not correct. Neither of us is a member of the committee. We >>>>> are both on the legal lists (I'm not sure if Robert is on the interna= l >>>>> one, but he is certainly on the discuss list where this kind of thing >>>>> would be). >>>>> >>>>> As I stated in that thread I believve Robert is mistaken, but since I >>>>> am not a part of the legal affairs committee, only an observer, I >>>>> cannot be certain. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you can point to any policy statement to back your belief, I'd love >>>> to have a link, for the record. =C2=A0Or, a even a cogent argument for= why >>>> this should not be allowed, given the stated goals of the license >>>> policies. >>> >>> See the reply I just posted pointing to a conversation you instigated >>> on this very issue on legal-discuss. That thread is certainly not a >>> "no", but it is certainly not a "yes" either. The conversation needs >>> finishing. >>> >> >> The thread went much further than what you quoted there, Ross, >> including the quote I gave where it was stated that this was OK. > > Really? Then markmail is not showing the full thread. Can you provide > a direct link to that mail, all I am seeing is at > http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g there is no OK in there. > > I don't see anything else in the ASF archves either, the start of the > thread is at http://s.apache.org/B1L > > What am I missing? > What I said in my earlier note -- the thread was partially on legal-discuss and partially on ooo-dev. Robert came over to ooo-dev to continue the discussion directly with the project. Probably the best way to get it in coherent form, if your mail client doesn't piece cross-list threads together, is to search MarkMail for "Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components" And if you can give me a link to the relevant Apache policy on this, I'd much appreciate that as well. It is rather hard to ask for a policy to be changed, or ask for an exception to a policy, or even to ask for a policy to be explained, if no one can actually find it. Saying "we've never done that before" is not an argument from policy. It is an argument from inexperience. If you'll acknowledge that there is no policy for this, then that would serve to clear the air on that particular point and then we could ask for some policy parameters in this area. > Ross > > Ross