-----Original Message-----
From: jean-frederic clere
Mladen Turk wrote:
What about linking to static microsoft libraries?
That is probably not OK.
I know that, but I know too that the law doesn't have a term _probably_ in it's dictionary.
Do we need to sign that or ASF will perhaps provide us with the development tools needed?
Use Open Source tools and/or help to improve existing ones.
Again, Is it required to use open source tools or not?
No, it is required to avoid non ASF licensed elements in the binaries that are delivered by the ASF.
We should ask about "contributed" builds (like the ones in apache/dist/httpd/binaries/)
Is it up to me and my moral or is there some ASF board decision on that? I had to sign for my current company that will take care that there are no illegal software on my boxes (as probably everyone else did).
Take a look at http(apr, apr-util, etc...). The win32 port has vstudio build files (like our connectors). My question is, where those tools comes from? ASF or developers that have couple of 1000$ to spend?
I don't know I am (nearly) not using win32.
Also I heard that the ASF has an agreement with InstallShield. I would love to receive a license for some of those tools if possible :-).
Since all of the board members are from httpd project, seems to me that all the decisions have been made through this point of view. It's not hard to implement this decisions for that particular project. They done this so far, although for different reasons (no ssl enabled dist, etc...).
Every one has an history. (ssl contains crypto some countries have restriction on such things).
Henri, Remy and Costin proposed to move the binaries to sourceforge, until the things clears up. I'm in favor of that, and will support such a decision if voted.
I am not. Temporary solutions may last long time. Blocking situations normaly evolve faster.
MT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
