> This is not a retrospective change just a clarification on what should be
> self evident.
This is a non-sequitur surely? Can something that is self-evident need
clarifying? Or do you suppose it is self-evident to all besides the feeble
intellects of this community?
I think a self-evident policy would anyway be an oxymoron.
I'll note that the legal-discuss list seem to disagree about both the current
policy (LEGAL-288 endorsed binaries in source control, but apparently Ray did
not), and about the sense of restricting binary dependencies in source
releases. This doesn't sound very self-evident to me.
On 28/03/2021, 23:49, "Justin Mclean" <jmcl...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
> Given the same agreement there that the ASF's docs are unclear on the
> topic, and having to rely upon a post from Roy in *some thread, I think it
> is safe to say we can (if need be) continue until those docs are made up
to
> date. Also, I cannot see how the ASF can enforce anything retroactively.
This is not a retrospective change just a clarification on what should be
self evident. The ASF has made retrospective changes in the past e.g. changes
to ASF header policy and changes to license compatability.
> Justin, please inform us of the threads you start.
I said above I would get this clarified on legal discuss. I've also added a
discussion item to the next board meeting.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
