www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Eckart de Castilho <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 11:53:59 GMT
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)?


-- Richard

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

View raw message