On Jul 19, 2012, at 12:11, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:38 AM, sebb wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> Can the above be read as follows for VFS and JCIFS: you cannot copy the >>>>> JCIFS jar into VFS (which we do not) but the VFS POM can point to it >>>>> (which >>>>> we do). >>>> >>>> The above document is only proposed, not actual policy. >>>> >>>> The following is the resolved list of questions: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >>>> >>>> In particular: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional >>>> >>>> "Will the majority of users want to use my product without adding the >>>> optional components? >>> >>> I do not see how this helps. It's yes or no: Can the VFS POM point to >>> a set of artifacts that are LGPL? >> >> Whether the answer is yes or no depends on the answer to the above question. > > There are only a few file systems in VFS that should be considered required. > All the ones that require the user to include a third-party jar - even if it > is Jackrabbit's - are optional. We could easily include file systems that > have dependencies on artifacts that are licensed under the LGPL or similar > licenses (although I would still shy away from GPL'd works because of the > FSF's interpretation of their license). > > The biggest issue I see with the stuff in the sandbox isn't licensing but if > anyone will support it. Ok, so the short answer is yes, we can move to trunk. The issue is whether someone can bring the code up to par. That person sounds like the author of the original post. After that, it's up to the committers, like me, to keep up. Gary > > Ralph > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
