Time to call the results I think. Gary, John and Branko provided three binding +1 votes. There were no 0 or -1 votes at all.
Therefore the vote has passed successfully. I will now call for the vote at incubator level. All votes: Gary Martin +1 Olemis Lang +1 (Non-binding) John Chambers +1 Peter Koželj +1 (Non-binding) Branko Čibej +1 Joachim Dreimann +1 (Non-binding) On 24 October 2012 16:22, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/10/12 15:32, Branko Čibej wrote: > >> On 24.10.2012 15:27, Gary Martin wrote: >> >>> P.S.: I'm a bit confused about the status of our trac tree. We make it >>>> part of the (signed) source release, but do we have a code grant for it? >>>> If we do, why isn't our copy licensed under ALv2? If we don't, how come >>>> we're including it in the release tarball? >>>> >>> >>> Actually I have no idea about whether there is a code grant but, as >>> far as I am aware, that would only change the license, not our ability >>> to distribute. >>> >> Yes, I'm confused about this distinction myself, which is why I'm >> raising the question and hoping someone competent sees it and answers it. >> :) >> >> -- Brane >> >> > Well, I am very confident that we are fine to use this approach.. partly > as I believe that this was considered at the last release, and partly > because I can't see a specific distinction between this and distributing > jQuery and Bootstrap. Well.. at least I can't see a distinction that > matters. The difference is that we provide a patched version for Trac > rather than vanilla copies but all three are listed in the NOTICE and > LICENSE files. > > However, there is one aspect of this that interests me. Given that we > maintain a patched version of Trac, it would be good to know if there are > any changes that we should make to keep this clear directly in the NOTICE > and/or LICENSE files. > > Cheers, > Gary >
