yes -- it's true that the policy is still only proposed and that the proposed policy allows for a transition/evaluation period to see the impact of some of the requirements.
I would not suggest that you remove something from the release just because it's under the NPL. However, you should make sure the license is copied into or referenced in the LICENSE file. Cliff On 6/1/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is pulling this M1 release really necessary? I was under the impression that right now it _is_ ok to be redistributing the NPL 1.1 licensed Rhino binary. Back in August last year the ASF board Special Order 6B, Allow redistribution of MPL- and NPL-licensed executables, was approved by unanimous consent, see section 6b at http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_08_17.txt Cliff's proposed third-party licensing policy at http://people.apache.org/%7Ecliffs/3party.html is still only a proposal isn't it? Even if it has now become ASF policy, it gives us one year to sort out the Rhino licensing or to find a replacement. I did ask Cliff about this specific issue back in March on legal-discuss, his reply is at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Given all this I'd really like to at least get this M1 release of Tuscany out now as is. We've tried real hard to make Tuscany easy for new users to get started, requiring a separate rhino download would make it that little bit harder. ...ant Jeremy Boynes wrote: > To be on the safe side, I'm going to propose that > we remove the Rhino jar from the distribution and > update the NOTICE files etc. with information for > users on where it can be downloaded from and under > what terms. Do we need another IPMC vote after such > a change or is lazy consensus acceptable? > > -- > Jeremy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
