Hi, > Sorry- miscommunication here. We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf > documentation, that is a no-no.
You can they just have to be clearly marked as such. Apache likes 3rd parties to use their code and having the documentation pointing to something useful for users is great. The PMC just has to be a little careful not to be seen as not endorsing any particular 3rd party but that’s not an issue here. > I believe runtime has full right to provide these binaries on github Yep they can.The Apache license is nice and permissive that way but it does ask for a few things in return. For example, and sorry if this is a bit of a repeat of my last email: - It’s not using an office release. Users are not supposed to be exposed to anything that’s not been released. It could put the ASF at risk. Just wait a couple of days until the vote is over. - The filename uses “apache” you’ll probabbly need to get permission from trademarks to do that. I doubt they give it and it’s far easier to rename. As a bonus there's less confusion that way as anyone can see that binary is not an Apache release. - Your using something the ASF produced. Great we love that but can you include a LICENSE file that tells the user which bits are Apache licensed. > 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. Well as I see it (and INAL etc ) currently you are not abiding by several license terms. In most licenses ask for a copy of their license to be distributed with a binary. The zip is missing an Apache license / notice file, GPL license notice and probably several other BSD, MIT licenses. Runtime can do what they want here, and I certainly have no say in that, but it would be nice to see an Apache license in that zip. Thanks, Justin
