You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mina.apache.org by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> on 2010/07/21 23:53:57 UTC
Re: removed releases with LGPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Niklas & the MINA PMC: In this month's report from MINA to the board, you
>>> mentioned that you removed from archive.apache.org past releases that
>>> mistakenly included items under the LGPL. In the future, please do not
>>> remove such releases unless their distribution is in fact illegal. Including
>>> items under the LGPL in releases is not illegal, just against Apache policy.
>>
>> We got a backup of the removed releases. So, if I understand
>> correctly, the best option would be to restore these?
>
> No objections here. Beyond that, it is a MINA PMC decision. If I
> were on that PMC, my take is that it would be in the best interest of
> existing users if the releases were still available.
As seen above, the board has provided feedback the we do not need to
remove the releases which contains the LGPL licensed file. Since I got
a backup, does anyone object to me restoring this? If I do, I'll add a
notice on our download page that M4-M6 contains a LGPL file and users
should be aware.
/niklas
Re: removed releases with LGPL
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Ashish <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So do we have another release without these libs?
The cleaned up RC1 that we have released should cover our needs for
now. Next up is probably getting the Maven build fully working so that
we can push a 2.0.0 :-)
/niklas
Re: removed releases with LGPL
Posted by Ashish <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:23 AM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Niklas & the MINA PMC: In this month's report from MINA to the board, you
>>>> mentioned that you removed from archive.apache.org past releases that
>>>> mistakenly included items under the LGPL. In the future, please do not
>>>> remove such releases unless their distribution is in fact illegal. Including
>>>> items under the LGPL in releases is not illegal, just against Apache policy.
>>>
>>> We got a backup of the removed releases. So, if I understand
>>> correctly, the best option would be to restore these?
>>
>> No objections here. Beyond that, it is a MINA PMC decision. If I
>> were on that PMC, my take is that it would be in the best interest of
>> existing users if the releases were still available.
>
> As seen above, the board has provided feedback the we do not need to
> remove the releases which contains the LGPL licensed file. Since I got
> a backup, does anyone object to me restoring this? If I do, I'll add a
> notice on our download page that M4-M6 contains a LGPL file and users
> should be aware.
+1
So do we have another release without these libs?
- ashish
Re: removed releases with LGPL
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
On 7/21/10 11:53 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Sam Ruby<ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Niklas Gustavsson<ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Doug Cutting<cu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Niklas& the MINA PMC: In this month's report from MINA to the board, you
>>>> mentioned that you removed from archive.apache.org past releases that
>>>> mistakenly included items under the LGPL. In the future, please do not
>>>> remove such releases unless their distribution is in fact illegal. Including
>>>> items under the LGPL in releases is not illegal, just against Apache policy.
>>> We got a backup of the removed releases. So, if I understand
>>> correctly, the best option would be to restore these?
>> No objections here. Beyond that, it is a MINA PMC decision. If I
>> were on that PMC, my take is that it would be in the best interest of
>> existing users if the releases were still available.
> As seen above, the board has provided feedback the we do not need to
> remove the releases which contains the LGPL licensed file. Since I got
> a backup, does anyone object to me restoring this? If I do, I'll add a
> notice on our download page that M4-M6 contains a LGPL file and users
> should be aware.
No problem at all.
I must admit I thought that releasing a LGPL lib in a package was
forbidden, but in fact it's not, it's just against The ASF policy. In
this case, removing the package was a mistake, sorry for that to our users.
Thanks to Niklas and to the board. It demonstrates that board reports
are useful, that board is cautious, and that we have a good chairman :)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
Re: removed releases with LGPL
Posted by Niklas Gustavsson <ni...@protocol7.com>.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Niklas Gustavsson
<ni...@protocol7.com> wrote:
> As seen above, the board has provided feedback the we do not need to
> remove the releases which contains the LGPL licensed file. Since I got
> a backup, does anyone object to me restoring this? If I do, I'll add a
> notice on our download page that M4-M6 contains a LGPL file and users
> should be aware.
Since no one objected, I've restored the files and added a notice to
our download page.
/niklas