Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABBD7113D4 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 12:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7343 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2014 12:06:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 7159 invoked by uid 500); 23 May 2014 12:06:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 7140 invoked by uid 99); 23 May 2014 12:06:54 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 12:06:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO s0167.dyn.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username rec, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 12:06:54 +0000 Subject: Re: Release Policy Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Richard Eckart de Castilho In-Reply-To: <2279D3FE-BA66-4873-8C6D-2CAABE2CE309@jaguNET.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 14:06:49 +0200 Cc: Mark Struberg Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4366A31E-C821-422C-AA34-5B6F8DB628F3@apache.org> References: <1400784905.88428.YahooMailNeo@web28903.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1400790465.3527.YahooMailNeo@web28902.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <537E5ED4.4010209@apache.org> <1400792669.96132.YahooMailNeo@web28902.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <323D8ACF-6942-46E6-A4A7-4A08F62171DE@jaguNET.com> <2279D3FE-BA66-4873-8C6D-2CAABE2CE309@jaguNET.com> To: legal-discuss@apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Sorry, bad habit. I mean the ALv2. -- Richard Why this mistake? Probably because the version 1.1 was still called "Apache Software License version 1.1" and the old name is still floating around.=20 On 23.05.2014, at 14:02, Jim Jagielski wrote: > What is the ASL? I know of the ALv2. >=20 > On May 23, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho = wrote: >=20 >> On 23.05.2014, at 13:49, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>=20 >>> On May 22, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Mark Struberg = wrote: >>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> 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.=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Licenses take effect when source is *released* (distributed or >>> redistributed). So it makes sense to define what a release *is*. >>=20 >> 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?=20 >>=20 >> 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)? >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> -- Richard --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org