www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 14:33:11 GMT
Well, but Richard is right. Whether a piece of work is ALv2 has nothing to do whether we release
it or not.
It depends purely on the 'consensus' aspects. If an author is knowingly and willingly wring
a file under ALv2 then this is it. It doesn't even need publication.

What our release process adds is that we have a kind of QA. What if some committer adds code
which is labeled as ALv2 but actually is only copied from a GPLv2 source, etc?
I'd compare it with a company which has no QA department. This is not illegal. But once a
real problem arises then you are into troubles. The ASF release process helps to reduce that
risk to a minimal level. 



The question I originally raised is really only if we need all this proper QA for test binaries
which we make available (I even avoid to say 'publish' or 'release') for testing audience
and which is pretty clearly marked as work in progress and 'use at even more own risk than
our proper releases' :)


LieGrue,
strub


On Friday, 23 May 2014, 14:26, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
 

>
>
>FTR: That was tongue in cheek...
>On May 23, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the ASL? I know of the ALv2.
>> 
>> On May 23, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23.05.2014, at 13:49, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> I disagree. One of the primary reasons for the release policy being
>>>>>> defined as it is is to provide a degree of legal protection to the
>>>>>> release managers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oki this is a part which we can discuss on the legal list. But the point
already got covered and answered dozens of times imo. The answer is that the ALv2 protects
the foundation and also the release manager already for all bona fides cases. End of story.

>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Licenses take effect when source is *released* (distributed or
>>>> redistributed). So it makes sense to define what a release *is*.
>>> 
>>> Does that imply that code that somebody copies from a version
>>> control system but that does not end up in a final release artifact
>>> is not covered by the ASL? 
>>> 
>>> Is it illegal to obtain unreleased code that is clearly marked as
>>> being under the ASL and to use it elsewhere (assuming that the
>>> rules of the ASL are obeyed)?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> -- Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>> 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
Mime
View raw message