On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:06, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >... >> It already has the Apache License (v2), and it uses a NOTICE file (per >> the license), and our packaging is tighter/stronger than typical >> Apache releases (per Justin's note). Are there other items to an >> "Apache release" that are needed to demonstrate that the svn project >> understands the proper release process? >> >> The 1.7 release is not on the schedule at all, while we're going to do >> a 1.6.7 release in a few weeks. >> >> We're naturally very reticent to disrupt a prior-release branch with a >> massive relicense. > > I found the above a bit misleading. From what I can see the current > trunk for subversion (I guess thats going to be 1.7+) had the ALv2 > headers applied 4 months ago: > > http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn?view=revision&revision=38370 > > But the 1.6.x branch is still using the old license headers: > > http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.6.x/ > > So I guess(?) the subversion guys don't want to duplicate that effort > on the 1.6.x branch.
It isn't so much an "effort" as "disruptive". We have very clear versioning guidelines[1]. Changes across patch versions are highly-restricted. A license change itself is disruptive, let alone the effects across the entire source code base. In essence, it is a policy decision derived from our versioning guidelines. Cheers, -g [1] http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
