Hi, I have removed the reference to the binaries from docs for now. i will wait until the IPMC votes have passed before doing anything more about this.
I will do the steps Justin mentioned in the meantime: * Rename files with something other than “Apache” * Work on adding all the licenses including Apache license in the binary release * Work on the language to use in the docs. It will talk about the source files first and then point to the binaries hosted on the 3rd party site. I won’t commit anything before the release is approved. Thank you, Justin and Sterling, for the explanations. aditi > On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
