On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:04 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
> TLP-level releases from the Incubator itself. I see people wanting
> structure/policy/rules to ensure these TLP releases are done properly. And
> that some want to "fix
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 11:55 PM Davor Bonaci wrote:
> I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
> in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
> rules.
>
I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
+1 to 2nd camp.
And even less requirements than have been suggested, I would offer. For
example: if the tarball is missing a LICENSE or NOTICE file? Who cares.
It's still a legal release. Just hard for downstream users to consume. But
they *can*. Nothing stopping somebody from trying out the
I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
rules.
What I see is:
[1] David is saying (correctly) how Incubator is structured right now. He
hasn't expressed ~any opinions; it is just an
Thanks Roman!
+1 to the 2nd camp!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 23, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>> A couple of thoughts:
>
> And a couple of thoughts on top of that.
>
>> Podlings are not permitted to
IMO, there's an actual test case going on right now. On 6/14, the Weex folks
asked about an LGPL dependency which became LEGAL-464. Personally, I think it
could be classified as a "runtime/platform" so that the CatX rules don't apply.
But they have been held up for 9 days and counting.
Who
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 3:31 PM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> A couple of thoughts:
And a couple of thoughts on top of that.
> Podlings are not permitted to call themselves "Apache Foo" because they are
> not yet full Apache projects.
Correct. The I way I see this thread is this: *when it comes to
Lets continue this discussion on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-464 please
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:18 PM Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> WebKit dates back to KHTML, an LGPL web engine from KDE. It sounds like
> it’s some WebKit specific files that are BSD licensed. I haven’t inspected
>
Hi,
+1 (binding)
I checked the source release:
- signatures and hashes good
- incubating in name
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE fine
- all source files have ASF headers
- no unexpected binary files
There's one very minor issue in that LICENSE appendix includes " © Copyright
2018 The
