On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his
interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our
source code
Hi!
I would like to start a discussion on accepting HAWQ
into ASF Incubator. The proposal is available at:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal
and is also attached to the end of this email.
Please note, that this proposal is very complementary
to the desire of HAWQ's sister
Hi Roman,
Great news!
BTW, it might be a invalid URL for the proposal. Should be
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HAWQProposal ?
Thanks,
Youngwoo
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Hi!
I would like to start a discussion on accepting HAWQ
into ASF
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:33 PM, 김영우 (Youngwoo Kim) warwit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Roman,
Great news!
BTW, it might be a invalid URL for the proposal. Should be
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HAWQProposal ?
Two may copy-paste buffers strike again :-( Thanks for spotting it
so quickly. Yes
Hi all,
We'd like to propose Horn (혼), a fully distributed system for
large-scale deep learning as an Apache Incubator project and start the
discussion. The complete proposal can be found at:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/HornProposal
Any advices and helps are welcome! Thanks, Edward.
=
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really
have never read something so stupid or ill phrased...
Every
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
ICLA/CCLA,
nothing could be further from the truth.
Committers sometimes make mistakes.
On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented
a
'kick-in'
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
that adapt it to the environment, and distributes it, I believe that it's a
fine thing for them to call it simple
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle
(though I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root
of my disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier
I think it is somewhat amusing, that this is actually discussed ~20years
after Apache group is formed. A newcomer must be flabbergasted that this
isn't clear cut by now... ;-)
// Niclas
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com
wrote:
I do not agree with this
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com
wrote:
This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
Perhaps I could try to return it there?
If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
that adapt it to the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
declaration attached to the project.
No, the license is that which was granted
It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
declaration attached to the project.
This makes sense to me, presuming that we still agree that the license
declaration (header or license file) is the best
AFAIK a SNAPSHOT has not been voted on and is therefore not a formal
ASF release.
So for example this would cover CI builds that deploy jars to the ASF
Maven SNAPSHOT repo.
On 20 August 2015 at 23:33, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote:
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are violating their
ICLA/CCLA,
nothing could
I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed from a legal angle (though
I do agree from a trademark angle). I have a feeling that the root of my
disagreement is the same as the root of Jim's earlier statement (though I may
be mistaken).
There are two points of IP due diligence in an
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start signing the
.jar?
Good idea, but to be practical to users, the certificate for
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source control repo, with a
LICENSE file at the top, I would think that this counts as a legal
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
There is also a trademark issue as well... only the ASF
can declare something as a release.
On Aug 6, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote:
Hi!
while answering a question on
Drill is implemented entirely in Java.
This isn't core to the proposal, but it would be better corrected.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:33 PM, 김영우 (Youngwoo Kim) warwit...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Roman,
Great news!
BTW, it might be a invalid URL for the proposal. Should be
Hi,
I am an initial committer of Apache(incubating) SINGA
(http://singa.incubator.apache.org/)
Both SINGA and the proposal follow the general parameter-server
architecture:
workers for computing gradients; servers for parameter updating.
SINGA has implemented the model and data
multiple worker groups for asynchronous training---data parallelism; and
multiple workers in one group for synchronous training---model parallelism.
So, it's basically execution of the multiple asynchronous BSP (Bulk
Synchronous Parallel) jobs. This can be simply handled within only
single BSP
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Are you sure? When you have a public source control
On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Coming in late.
A snapshot is not a release. Licenses kick in at distribution/
release.
Interesting.
So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
‘releases’ that
are on our official mirrors
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au wrote:
So what do we do about all the rc1|rc2|rcx ,alphas, betas and Milestone
‘releases’ that are on our official mirrors right now?
(Because they would have been voted on as a ‘’release’’ for the projects to
put them
27 matches
Mail list logo
