Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Hi, > Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. It’s been discussed see [1][2][3[4]], note that is just for GPL with a specific exclusion not ordinary GPL licenced software. The exclusion states: # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, # if you distribute

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Hi, Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to reconsider if explained. I checked: - release contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has some minor issues

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Thanks Justin for the detailed check, > GPL licensed files includes: > ./config/ltmain.sh > ./config/ltversion.m4 > ./config/lt~obsolete.m4 > ./config/config.guess > ./config/config.sub > ./config/install-sh (?) > ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd > > While this seems

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

+0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers. The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have exceptions for use which allows it. I ran it through my usual stuff, http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0 - and every single GPL-licensed file has an

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Daniel, Could you explain those exceptions? I don't think I've ever heard of GPL being OK'd to use in an AL release. John On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM Daniel Gruno wrote: > +0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers. > > The seemingly GPL (some

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

IANAL, but the files state: # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, # if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that # is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the # same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. If

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Thanks for your comments, Daniel and Justine. We have updated the files to resolve the license issues. New path: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/0.2.0-RC1/ MD5: E2 10 59 04 9F F1 B8 F1 10 25 82 9A B9 72 6A 4C SHA256: D08C0425 87B9EB50 2C70E527 11DC4C7F 1768EB7F 9CDBB0EB

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

John, The language within the header of those files includes things like the following as found in ltmain.sh # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, # if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that # is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file

OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Hi, Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4] Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of places. For instance: - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

On Jan 9, 2016 14:58, "Ross Gardler" wrote: > > Everyone should read the subject and reset. +1 - the original subject line corresponds to that projects interested in new activity. 3-5 times a week a student or IT hobbiest or professional developer or website designer

RE: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. If there has been a documented decision to allow this then the legal policy docs need updating before we start updating any Incubator docs Sent from my Windows Phone From: Justin

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

I'm wondering if this should be over at legal discuss On Jan 10, 2016 19:40, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. > > > > So

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0

Hi, > We have updated the files to resolve the license issues. Thanks for making the changes. As the RC artefact has changed I believe the PPMC would need to revote on it before the IPMC can vote on it. Given there been no code changes that PPMC vote should be a trivial process. > We managed

Re: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

Just to second some of that, both incubator and outside, it would be cool if the ASF had a 'jobs board' of sorts, where projects could add "adverts" for people when they are short of specific help. Or conversely if I'm bored and want to do something a bit different where can I find projects who

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

jira is exactly how I used to run GSOC, I think the process remains roughly the same. The goal WA to have a list of tasks marked as "mentor available". This list could bf used throughout the year, not just GSOC. I built searches for this but it never really got traction. I still think it's a

Re: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber wrote: > Just to second some of that, both incubator and outside, it would be cool > if the ASF had a 'jobs board' of sorts, where projects could add "adverts" > for people when they are short of specific help. Or conversely if

Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread. > > So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4] > > Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in