On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
On Aug 23, 2008, at 17:48, Damien Katz wrote:
I'm not sure it should be an Apache project, because we can't
distribute the binaries as Apache (which is what most people want)
I'm not sure if there is an issue here. We certainly can't release
something under anything other than the original license, but I
don't see how that would be a problem since all licenses involved
(as far as I can tell) are BSD-ish in nature.
and most people who are capable of building it would just use the
current build and install tools anyway.
On a related note, from the download page we should to link to a
page of externally built binaries (with disclaimers that they
aren't official Apache releases) so people can find them easily.
Is that okay by ASF standards? Mentors?
I don't see any harm, as long as it's clear that it's not an ASF
project. To be honest, however, I don't see anything wrong with
bringing the code in officially either. Any externally compiled code
will be a dependency, and a lot of ASF projects are distributing
external dependencies in binary format together with the source code
(just think of the countless jars in the ASF repo). Am I missing
something else?
Pls note I didn't do any homework in finding our whether the ICU
license is kosher. A cursory read doesn't seem to imply any major
issue, though.
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
Blogging at http://boldlyopen.com/
