On May 23, 2014 10:36 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <> wrote:
Look at the license. The license applies to the work.
Is a file in a vcs somewhere a "work"? For some entities,
like various Github projects, which muddy the whole
concepts around release, distribution, etc... then
the simply placement of a file on a public repo may
be enough, for the owner/holder, to comprise a "release"
in sufficient amount to have the license apply.

On May 23, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <> wrote:

> On 23.05.2014, at 13:49, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> On May 22, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Mark Struberg <> 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail: