No response to my query on general@ so far [1] but I think everyone is not as active because of the holidays. Maybe Bertrand can give us his thoughts.
I’m working on fixing up the LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package and jar files, and will try to provide easy to comment options for the binary package. Then, IMO, unless we hear back from someone who has experience in this area, since you are the RM, you get to decide whether to package “external” jars in the binary package or not, and what prompts to require of folks installing this release via Ant and the Installer. Since binary packages are not an act of the foundation, other than the explicit statement that LICENSE and NOTICE must match the contents of the binary package, I can’t imagine that it puts the foundation at risk if we guess wrong about packaging external jars that are otherwise open source or if we ask too many or too few questions during the install about the open source licenses for those jars. On 12/28/14, 4:31 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >Even after rereading the thread, I won't pretend to understand what's >being discussed, but... Are we any closer to a resolution? if so, is >this something that absolutely has to be addressed with this release? > >EdB > [1] http://s.apache.org/zpt
