Hi, >> 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)
>From my understanding of the way Apache works, only the src files constitute a 'release'. Many (if not most) Apache projects also supply a binary distribution (which also tends to be signed), but this is *not* the 'release'. > 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. As far as I know, we don't release anything unless it's under the Apache License (2.0). Even if components are BSD-ish in nature I don't think we can host a bundle containing artefacts under different licenses within the Apache infrastructure (certainly not in the official svn). In Ant we rely on jars from third parties (which are often GPL/BSD etc licensed), we distribute our src and ant-xxx.jar stubs which won't work without the relevant external libraries. We can only point the users in the right direction to download these from elsewhere, we cannot keep these libs in svn to build against. >> 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. I would guess that the best approach is to have an external projects/builds page where you can link to couchdbx. There's nothing wrong with having a branch in svn where ASL licensed couchedbx support code can live (eg couchedb/sub-projects/couchedbx). Hope this helps provide some direction (although for the final word ask your project mentors/sponsors or ask on #members and find out from the people with legal knowledge - IANAL etc etc) Thanks, Kev
