On 6/1/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
be
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 s
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 co
On 5/31/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please check with Cliff that your understanding regarding Rhino distribution
as you explained it to Bill's objection is correct. Not to hold up the
release, since you've documented the license and are in the Incubator, but
just to be sure fo
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Passed with +1's from dims, jim, pzf, stoddard, jstrachan and no -1's.
Please check with Cliff that your understanding regarding Rhino distribution
as you explained it to Bill's objection is correct. Not to hold up the
release, since you've documented the license and are i
On 5/25/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We voted on tuscany-dev on a revised version that addresses the issues
Robert raised below and the results can be viewed at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.tuscany.devel/3403
We would like to request approval from the In
