On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Coming in late.
> >>
> >> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> >> release.
> >
> > I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really
> > have never read something so stupid or ill phrased...
> >
> > Every contributor committing code to any ASF project, or even
> contributing
> > it to us in public forums (including our mailing lists, our bug trackers,
> > etc) is committing that code under the AL or has designated explicitly
> what
> > licence it came in under (commit message: forked from BSD-licensed code
> > base at {URL}.)
> >
> > It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
> > 'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
> ICLA/CCLA,
> > nothing could be further from the truth.
> >
> >> There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
> >> can declare something as a release.
> >
> > There we agree :)
>
> Please reread what was said... We are talking *releases* here.
> Making something publicly available is NOT A RELEASE. It may be
> under a license, but is IS NOT A RELEASE.
>
I reread what you wrote,
> A snapshot is not a release.
We know this and agree on this, and you just responded to the obvious but
failed to address the second half of your statement.
> Licenses "kick in" at distribution/release.
They do? This is the statement of the VP Legal, so whether it is right or
wrong, here at the ASF we attempt to honor the 'spirit' of the policy of
other licensors when we use their code, and we would hope others would
honor the 'spirit' of our policies here. It that is the underlying
assumption, that the code is not licensed by the ASF until a formal release
occurs, then we need to revisit the many implications of that philosophy.
