On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2012, at 19:40 , Paul Davis wrote: > >> A quick glance through code shows MPL/GPL/LGPL triple-licensed files. >> I know we can depend on MPL code but I have no idea if that means it >> can live in the repository or not. A quick google and I can't find >> anything that specifically states whether it can or can't. >> >> I appreciate that this was developed with the intention that it'd be >> contributed back to the ASF and that's the only reason I didn't >> immediately veto it. But there's 500,000 lines in this commit. That's >> awfully significant to throw in without warning or discussion even if >> it is on a branch. >> >> In the end, I of course defer to your judgement. I just wanted to >> stress the seriousness of IP clearance on such a gigantic push. > > Fair enough :) All I wanted for now is a place to collaborate to > get this into shape that's worth committing. Is nuking the branch > enough to get the code out again? We can work on it on GitHub. >
Good enough for me anyway. It could technically be rescued until some point in the future but I think it'll be gone gone as soon as GC runs. > Cheers > Jan > -- > > >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2012, at 18:49 , Paul Davis wrote: >>> >>>> Whoa! Has anyone gone through and cleared IP issues with this code? We >>>> might also want to look into whether this sort of thing requires a >>>> Software Grant. I appreciate the enthusiasm but unless I missed a >>>> discussion I'm quite concerned about whether this is cleared to be in >>>> the ASF repo. >>> >>> I vouch for it. I'm happy to nuke the branch if you find an issue. >>> >>> This was merely to get Brian, Noah and I to have a branch to knock >>> out the mechanics, and I wanted to do it in ASF-land, so we don't >>> get accused of doing too many things on GitHub :) >>> >>> I'm sorry if I jumped the gun here. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >
