[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)

[Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>]

Time to call the results I think.

Gary, John and Branko provided three binding +1 votes.
There were no 0 or -1 votes at all.

Therefore the vote has passed successfully. I will now call for the vote at
incubator level.

All votes:
Gary Martin +1
Olemis Lang +1 (Non-binding)
John Chambers +1
Peter Koželj +1 (Non-binding)
Branko Čibej +1
Joachim Dreimann +1 (Non-binding)


On 24 October 2012 16:22, Gary Martin <ga...@wandisco.com> wrote:

> On 24/10/12 15:32, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 24.10.2012 15:27, Gary Martin wrote:
>>
>>> P.S.: I'm a bit confused about the status of our trac tree. We make it
>>>> part of the (signed) source release, but do we have a code grant for it?
>>>> If we do, why isn't our copy licensed under ALv2? If we don't, how come
>>>> we're including it in the release tarball?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I have no idea about whether there is a code grant but, as
>>> far as I am aware, that would only change the license, not our ability
>>> to distribute.
>>>
>> Yes, I'm confused about this distinction myself, which is why I'm
>> raising the question and hoping someone competent sees it and answers it.
>> :)
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
> Well, I am very confident that we are fine to use this approach.. partly
> as I believe that this was considered at the last release, and partly
> because I can't see a specific distinction between this and distributing
> jQuery and Bootstrap. Well.. at least I can't see a distinction that
> matters. The difference is that we provide a patched version for Trac
> rather than vanilla copies but all three are listed in the NOTICE and
> LICENSE files.
>
> However, there is one aspect of this that interests me. Given that we
> maintain a patched version of Trac, it would be good to know if there are
> any changes that we should make to keep this clear directly in the NOTICE
> and/or LICENSE files.
>
> Cheers,
>     Gary
>