On 10/20/14, 3:11 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> IMO, all of your quotes refer to source releases. > >Please reread there are serval references that the binary must be made >from an source release and that only official voted on releases can live >in dist. Your modified binary also doesn't comply with Apache licensing >policy (it would require a change to the NOTICE file). I’m willing to change the LICENSE and NOTICE. Binary packages often have different ones than the ones that go in the source package. > >> There might be more flexibility. > >There might be but is it really that hard to follow official policy and >thus be under the legal protection it gives? Again this issue has been >know about for several weeks. It isn’t hard, but it won’t meet our timing needs. At 5 installs a day, it was just an unfortunate nuisance, but if we get a lot more, then we might care more. Seems like it is worth asking to see if we can do this within policy or can get an exception. The worst that happens is that someone with authority says no. -Alex
