Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 76.96.62.32 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
Subject: Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <50509363.3090903@pathscale.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:06:43 -0400
Cc: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>,
 Apache Board <board@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7CD6F121-5FAB-43A1-B0AC-1547FFD31A02@jaguNET.com>
References: <E2A1FAA8-E360-49DB-881D-5874A74D76A0@jaguNET.com>
 <50509363.3090903@pathscale.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org


On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergstr=F6m <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> =
wrote:

> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> DESCRIPTION
>>=20
>> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to =
promote
>>   a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
>>   stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been =
clarified.
> You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an =
actionable item here.  Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the =
correct process for this?

What actionable item?

> ---------------------------------------
> Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin =
bob's views.  If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their =
views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their =
views which gives *others* concern.  This point of objection needs to be =
resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
>=20