On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 06:07PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > At a source level, I think binary redistribution concerns of components > packaged by Bigtop don't impact Bigtop releases. Bigtop is largely > meta-source: build files instructing the assembly of assemblies, or Puppet > or similar scripts directing deployment and configuration management. The > Java and Groovy sources for integration tests has proper licensing, > contribution, and do not to my knowledge introduce any dependencies on > forbidden or uncategorized licenses. > > On the other hand, when looking at the binary convenience artifacts > produced by a Bigtop build, wherever a component isn't doing the right > thing then there could be concerns. I wasn't around when Bigtop was going > through incubation or in the beginning of its life as a TLP. How was the > question resolved of what Bigtop should/must do if binary redistribution > includes components with licenses that aren't in category A? Perhaps one of > the old-timers could pass along pointers or some wisdom to the (relative) > newcomers. I did attempt mail-search.apache.org but this wasn't immediately > useful.
I don't remember exactly, but I think we had some contention around the binary distribution. Which has been pretty much resolved by the fact the we are _not_ releasing binaries. And the convenience packaging isn't even stored on ASF infra. I do not see an issue with it, really - at least not a Bigtop's one. What others thought about this? Cos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
