Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: 76.96.30.32 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Message-Id: <9344101B-0893-4CE7-8918-F6A2778CDF4D@jaguNET.com>
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <168ef9ac0904160819v155e440j12d802ae749a315@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Subject: Re: Licensing pertaining to what's in SVN vs. what's in distributions
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:37:32 -0400
References: <168ef9ac0904160819v155e440j12d802ae749a315@mail.gmail.com>

Regarding just the dependency issue, are you compliant with
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ??

On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:

> Our project would contains some code (< 1%) that cannot be released
> under the Apache License, so in our "dist" build target, we strip out
> that portion of our codebase and produce a source distribution without
> the offending code.
>
> My question is: is this an OK practice, or does our subversion
> repository need to contain only things that we are allowed to
> distribute?  I'd prefer the former, because otherwise, we'll have to
> have a sister-repository on something like Google Code, which just
> complicates our build process a little.
>
> We are currently voting on a release, and the answer to this question
> is very relevant, so a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> -T
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org