+1 binding
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and signatures.
gpg: Signature made Sat 27 Apr 2024 02:45:48 PM CST
gpg:using RSA key 1E2CDAE4C08AD7D694D1CB139D7BE8E45E580BA4
gpg: Good signature from "chaokunyang (CODE SIGNING KEY)
" [ultimate]
apache-fury-0.5.0-incubating
+1 no-binding
[x] Download Fury is valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] Source code distributions have correct names matching the current
release.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct.
[x] All files have license headers if necessary.
[x] No compiled archives bundled in source
Thank you!
Using Apache License 2.0 as the single license makes sense to me.
Best,
tison.
Shane Curcuru 于2024年5月2日周四 19:55写道：
> (Moving general@incubator and dev@community to BCC since this is really
> a legal question about ASF licensing)
>
> tison wrote on 5/1/24 11:25 PM:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I
(Moving general@incubator and dev@community to BCC since this is really
a legal question about ASF licensing)
tison wrote on 5/1/24 11:25 PM:
Hi,
IIUC, the Apache License 2.0 is mainly to license code and related stuff
that constructs the final software.
However, projects may also create te
