On 14 March 2016 at 23:52, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > Agreed. The good news is that the previous license has an added benefit > of being compatible with ALv2, but of course we still have to be crystal clear > on that. > > Any good example of this that currently exist in ASF?
Here's an example of how we do the non-ASF download links for Taverna Workbench (as we have not yet released the Workbench repository under ASF): https://taverna.incubator.apache.org/download/workbench/ (Comments welcome!) To play safe we made it so the *.exe download links here actually don't download directly, but go to a third-party legacy page where you have to select again. It could be that such a page could just be a Launchpad, BinTray, BitBucket or GitHub Releases, which should be good alternatives for hosting the pre-Apache binaries. So perhaps you would be able to link to say https://github.com/madlib/madlib/releases/tag/v1.7.0 ? It should be easy for madlib's case as you don't have binary distributions. >> Note we probably don't want to host the actual downloads themselves; >> just point to the existing old download page. > Actually, we'd rather move the bits to ASF infra (if that's ok). Hmm... although their Apache license would permit this, those earlier releases has not gone through IP review. I think this would be confusing as then ASF would be hosting downloads for non-ASF-vetted releases - which would also be against policy. Technically ASF also uses the mirror network for downloads - do we want to inject non-ASF releases there? -- Stian Soiland-Reyes Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
