Hey Hank,
It looks like you have the votes you need to pass, but can you leave it
open a little longer for those of us that haven't gotten a chance to test
yet?

Thanks,
Dave

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I’m +1 as well
>
> Checked out:
> - signatures/checksums (Hank is your key signed yet?)
> - licenses
> - build
>
> —Eric
>
>
> > On Nov 14, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Nir Sopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> > We were able to build traffic-control, install and connect OPs,
> Portal-V2,
> > Monitor (Golang), Router and Stats.
> > Also got a redirect.
> > Note that I missed the last commit ("Change cdn.name to cdn.domain_name
> in
> > DeliveryServiceInfoForDomainList"), but as far as I see it could not
> break
> > the installation.
> > Nir
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Matt-
> >>  I found another LEGAL ticket (https://issues.apache.org/
> >> jira/browse/LEGAL-330) based on a Google version of the PATENTS file
> this
> >> time.
> >>
> >> Looks like things are OK to use then.
> >>
> >> —Eric
> >>
> >> On Nov 14, 2017, at 12:50 PM, Mills, Matthew <[email protected]
> <
> >> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> FYI, Go itself has the same file
> >>
> >> https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/PATENTS
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/14/17, 10:36:43 AM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <
> [email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>   I’ve been going through licensing for the 2.1 release and found this
> >> file:
> >>   ./traffic_stats/vendor/golang.org/x/net/PATENTS<http://
> >> golang.org/x/net/PATENTS>
> >>
> >>   This looks like it places some of the same restrictions that caused
> the
> >> whole Facebook React.js and rocksDb controversy a few months ago.
> >>   Fun reading here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303
> >>   There’s some in depth discussion of the detailed Facebook license, I
> >> can’t even begin to speculate how that compares to this Google
> conditional
> >> patent grant.
> >>
> >>   We can see what the IPMC/Legal thinks or maybe just remove the code?
> >>
> >>   —Eric
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to