On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Todd Volkert<tvolk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk >> > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for >> > > the full text. >> > >> > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk. Given that we got it from >> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/, which is the license >> linked to >> > off the silk icon home page, should this block a release? >> >> Yes, because it's not actually the license. > > I'm adding the full license to the trunk now, but with all due respect, I'm > gonna wait for an IPMC opinion on this one, since we've already gone out > with the 1.1 and 1.2 releases with the existing license (and since this is > an incubating release). Don't get me wrong: I'm not against re-tagging if > it's required; but no sense in calling off the vote prematurely.
IMHO all valid objections to releases that are made for legal reasons should always be addressed, and they should block a release until they are addressed. IMHO, making a mistake once before is no excuse for making the same mistake again. The discussion is difficult because we're not lawyers, and so "valid objection" is a difficult judgment call for us to make. The IPMC errs on the side of caution, probably a bit more so than most other PMCs, probably because we're setting an example as much as anything else. Rather than force the IPMC to make these judgment calls, please also err on the side of caution and fix things. (These discussions can also be difficult because there can be a dispute about what actually should be in a file or what license applies or whatever. Different advice would apply then...but the most appropriate action seems rather obvious here.) cheers, - Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
