On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> 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.
IIRC, it ended up being a gray area. We were asked to remove the binary artifacts from the ASF managed INFRA and started publishing them on Cloudera provided S3. Thanks, Roman.
