www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Bundling and LICENSE
Date Mon, 04 Apr 2016 01:55:34 GMT
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
>...

> > that person can void every other PMC member's vote because as soon as an
> > irregularity is found
>
> A -1 is not a veto / does not void a release. In the last RC it was
> suggested that the LICENSE/NOTICE issue be fixed for the next release and
> no one voted -1. Even if there was a -1 all that means that that individual
> PMC member doesn’t think the RC is release quality (for a good reason) and
> is not a veto. Also people can change their vote once it is decided how to
> resolve the issue in question.
>

This is important. The PMC can still make a release, if it has (3) +1 votes.

I think the important point here: what is the *intent* behind Google's
applying the ALv2 to GCL? Easy. They want you to use it under that license.
If they missed a NOTICE, that should not scuttle your release. It isn't
like you've got a whole house of cards that is about to fall down.

Look. Back in 2005, I chose ALv2 for Google's default license. Exceptions
were to be made (eg. GPL for GNU tools and BSD for Mac stuff), but
otherwise Google uses ALv2 for all it can. Their *intent* is for you to use
it however you like. No skin off their back. Possibly even good for them,
if you find a way to use the code. So it isn't like they're about to roll
around and get pissed off at your bundling of GCL. Just do it, file an
upstream issue, and stop writing emails about this stuff.

Cheers,
-g

Mime
View raw message