On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 10:18 +1000, Gavin wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Upayavira [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Saturday, 18 April 2009 9:23 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pivot 1.1 (second try) > > > > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:48 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:07 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > As far as I know, putting a file in a publicly accessible SVN > > > > repository is considered as distribution too. > > > > > > No, I am very positive that this is not the case. Legal dilligence is > > > done on the release artifacts separately from SVN issues. Unlike > > > release artifacts, SVN are at times incomplete, incorrect and > > > inaccurate. "Tags" have no legal meaning whatsoever, and should not > > > even be part of the discussion. > > > > > > So, since we are looking at a "Release", please spare the SVN > > > discussion for later. > > > > Personally, I give a lot of weight to what Larry said on legal-discuss. > > > > Both SVN and releases are distribution. So, we _must_ be sure that > > anything that goes into SVN we have the right to distribute. > > Are you talking about trunk, or release tags/branches ? > > SVN in my opinion is a place where we place code to work on collaboratively > , it's a developer resource - anything in there is subject to being broken > code-wise, documentation-wise and for short bursts may contain 3rd party > jars and items without appropriate licensing. Acceptable I think, until some > volunteer dev cleans it up. > > I do not agree that anything in svn is distribution, the same as snapshots > and nightlies are not (supposed to be) advertised to joe bloggs the user, > but jane bloggs the dev being on the dev list will know where to get her > hands on it. > > And now I just read the bit about sparing svn discussion for later, oops.
There is a distinction between 'distribution' and 'release'. As Larry pointed out, someone from company X (say, IBM) may do a checkout from our SVN. That means a transfer of intellectual property from ASF to IBM. That is distribution - no question about it. Thus, I cannot commit a bootlegged music track into Apache SVN, as neither I, nor the ASF, have the right to distribute it. However, I could commit an LGPL library, as we do have the right to distribute that. We just have a policy to not allow it to be included within a 'release' - the release being the end-product of ASF effort, and the thing that is intended for consumption by the public. Upayavira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
