Sorry- miscommunication here. We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf documentation, that is a no-no.
I believe runtime has full right to provide these binaries on github: LGPL license in dependency has an exception for static linking, in order to allow for just this case. It's incompatible for ASF - but we're not violating anyone's license. If it's an issue tho- we're replacing this code soon, so we're fine not hosting it as well. But I think the only thing necessary is to remove references to these binaries from the ASF site. Sterling > On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Hope that is fine? > > Sorry not really. [1] > > Think of it this way Runtime is taking an Apache release and compiling it and > making that available as their own software. When the release is approved > that’s fine as the Apache license allows that. However you need to abide by > the terms of the Apache licence the code is under and respect Apache > trademarks. > > I think it would be OK if you do the following and sorry it’s a long list. I > can hunt down links for you or explain in more detail if you need. > - Wait until the IPMC votes has passed. > - Provide links to the official Apache source release first. > - Change the name of the files so that they could not be confused with an > Apache release. i.e. call then Runtime not Apache > - Likely some changes will need to be made to make clear that this is a > convince binary release by Runtime not Apache inside that zip i.e. changes to > LICENSE, NOTICE etc > - Provide links to the runtime compiled versions but make it 100% clear on > that page that these files are not Apache releases and not hosted on Apache > infrastructure. > - You may not be able to license that bundle under an Apache license as it > probably contains GPL software? > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
