I hope/don't think we need a final statement on LGPL policy before we
ship
Roller 1.3 and Roller 2.0. We get can that later, we just need a green
light
to ship an officially unofficial and unendorsed release. I thought we
had that.
Anyhow, I'm cool with another Java.Net release, I just want to get the
code out to the folks who're waiting for it.
- Dave
On Nov 4, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
I understand it, but I'm also aware that it doesn't seem to have board
consensus yet. It seems to be a big issue for us doing an ASF release,
so I'll keep pushing.
Although it's frowned on, there is nothing wrong with releasing at
java.net again, provided we do it right. Effectively we're forking the
project on paper (but as it's the same community forking it, it's not
the fear that would usually associate with the word fork). It'll be
interesting to define exactly how you fork something. ie) you can't
claim to be the ASF, but I presume that you don't have to remove
'apache' from the package names.
Anyway, I'll keep pushing. I've not heard back from Cliff yet, but
there's a balance between the politeness of hassling.
Hen
On 11/4/05, Dave Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Max respect Noel, but I don't really understand the path forward on
LGPL components in Apache projects. I have heard conflicting stories
from different people and never seen a definitive/final statement of
the policy. So I'd be *very* happy to see an official policy
statement.
- Dave
On Nov 3, 2005, at 3:03 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
as far as I know we've not announced ...
Then push back via Cliff. IMO, we understand the issues reasonably
well
enough to allow things to proceed. Dave already understands, and the
rest
of the Roller community need to understand, the path forward.
--- Noel
