On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:05:14PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and > that's true (and not an issue). What I asked was, are there distros which > ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they > labeled as such?
I've had ports trees that carried odd-numbered trains, (2.1, 2.3), and even yesterdays-svn (from nightly builds)! > > Our candidates are 100% redistributable and licensed in accordance with > > AL2.0, just like our svn trees. > > So you can make anything out of any combination of our svn trees, with > whatever patches you like, as long as you give them your own name. Right? > They are not, for example, a "release 2.2.5" until the project approves them. Yes, and to repeat again; as long as it is made clear that it is not an ASF release :-) > E.g. I might have a binary "BetterScript, based on PHP sources 5.2.4 RC2", > but I better not ship that as *the* "PHP 5.2.4". Do we agree on this, > or not? Or are we in the mode of playing devil's advocate to spend list > bandwidth? (Sometimes I don't know with you, Colm :-) I'm not trying to split hairs, but the tarballs we create as RCs are licensed AL2.0 , and there's no way we can change that. That's all I mean, third parties can take those tarballs and redistribute them as they wish - as long as they take all of the precautions and steps redistributors usually should. I'm told it would be a bad idea for them to mis-represent things by claiming it was an ASF release, what kind of naming practises that translates into is probably best consulted with a lawyer :/ > I'd hate to find the RC process closed, as Jim's suggested, because of > misunderstandings about this subtle difference of opinion. The only > thing we lose is quality of our releases. This is not some subtle difference of opinion. You said; "Without an announce, /dev/ tarball build doesn't belong on any external site." This is simply at odds with the AL2.0, so I'm saying the complete opposite. I don't think that's subtle :-) /dev/ tarballs *are* re-distributable, it says so right there in them, and this is irrevokably the case. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
