For what it is worth, I agree with Joe here. The question is whether there is a valid reason to keep them here.
Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jan 13, 2012 3:13 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perfectly valid answer with one caveat: > I don't know of any Apache policy that > directly applies here. I'd bet that > > if httpd had what it considered a valid > reason for including the source of a > Category-B licensed product in their > svn tree, nobody, not even the board, > would have grounds to object, especially > not if they'd passed the issue off > to LEGAL and didn't receive a negative > response. > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> > >To: [email protected]; Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:08 AM > >Subject: Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries) > > > >If you are asking me (and only me); > > > >--- Ven 13/1/12, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > >> Why hasn't there been a LEGAL jira > >> issue > >> filed about this at this point? As I said > >> it's a gray area that I'm certain the IPMC > >> has no existing governing policy on, and I'm also > >> certain that your mentors will disagree in > >> the opinions they are providing to you. > >> > > > >I don't like gray areas: I think we should comply > >crystal clear with Apache policies and solve this > >beyond doubt. > > > >As I said before, the solution is easy: dropping > >the files from SVN and providing sufficient > >instructions on where to get them. > > > >Pedro. > > > > > > > >
