Something I realized (duh) while writing up a comment on HBASE-14085. We don't have to resort to complete source-only releases, we could in theory release source for everything and binary convenience artifacts for everything except the hbase-shell module.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not arguing that LEGAL-222 is a valid concern. I think we have a > concern of at least equal weight, which is every single releasable code > line is held up. We have blocked intention to make these release candidates: > > 0.98.14 > 1.0.2 > 1.1.2 > 1.2.0 > > That's everything users would find useful, excepting 0.94, but see below > regarding that code line. > > I think it's fine to try and communicate LEGAL-222 is a blocker of this > magnitude and wait a bit longer. > > If we don't have a response soon, however, I propose we resume releases, > providing only release source artifacts for the time being. We could > back-fill binary convenience artifacts at a later time should we have a > green light, if Maven/Nexus allows it. As a RM looking at how to get > 0.98.14 and 1.0.2 out, I may simply do that soon and let the PMC judge the > wisdom of a source only release under these circumstances by way of the > usual release vote process. > > I went back to look our archives with an eye toward what we would have to > pull if we are not allowed to redistribute the JRuby jar in convenience > binaries. We did not start splitting out source only artifacts until 0.95. > All releases 0.94.x and earlier ship as a single tarball. If you look at > http://archive.apache.org/dist/hbase/, every release effectively back to > the beginning of time is affected. > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Source releases are fine, I think, since current guidance says that we can >> have a runtime dependency on works under the license. Only redistribution >> is in question AFAIK. >> >> I agree the situation is unsustainable, but I don't think it's any >> different then if we were making convenience binaries with bits under the >> Artistic license (aka "the terms as Perl itself"). While I'd love legal to >> be more responsive I suspect their response to requests for expedience >> would be "remove the questionable work". >> >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I think it's clear enough that we can make source only releases. >> Correct me >> > if I am wrong. >> > >> > It should be unacceptable that our releases are indefinitely blocked. >> This >> > is not a sustainable position. >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > For me, yes. the PMC duties say that we have to ensure things we >> release >> > > meet the foundation policies on licensing. That we were mistaken for a >> > long >> > > period of time is different than knowingly approving releases that >> don't >> > > meet the policy. >> > > >> > > I haven't seen much in the way of activity on either the ticket[1] or >> on >> > > the legal-discuss@asf public list[2]. Maybe a short note that makes >> > clear >> > > the PMC is blocking several releases due to the issue would help? >> > > >> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-222 >> > > [2]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ >> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Purtell < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > We have made many releases that include that fat JRuby jar. For >> years. >> > > > Would continuing releases until told otherwise be acceptable or >> > > > unacceptable? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I've got a more maintianable version ready to go up today, but >> that >> > > won't >> > > > > help speed up LEGAL-222. >> > > > > >> > > > > anyone have some juice with the legal PMC or know a lawyer that is >> > > > willing >> > > > > to weigh in? >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Sean >> > > > >> On Aug 4, 2015 2:56 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> All releases are blocked on HBASE-14085. Let's get it resolved >> this >> > > > week so >> > > > >> we can resume releases. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -- >> > > > >> Best regards, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> - Andy >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - >> Piet >> > > Hein >> > > > >> (via Tom White) >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Sean >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> > (via Tom White) >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Sean >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
