Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

> On Oct 2, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > ultimately > decided that expecting a bit more up-front community action was a > prudent choice. > > What I'd like to see is a proof that ASF or no ASF the community wants to take > matters into its own hands

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Agree with you on all points, Taylor. > > And I am even quite surprised to see the number of people backing the > project, yet Apache is adamant to get involved. It feels a little bit like > the "Community over Code" and

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Agree with you on all points, Taylor. And I am even quite surprised to see the number of people backing the project, yet Apache is adamant to get involved. It feels a little bit like the "Community over Code" and "Independent of any Corporate Influences" have both received a big fat slap in their

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think the community behind this proposal is ready to accept defeat at this point. With DataStax' objection, the project simply can't be brought under the auspices of the ASF unless DataStax reverses its stance. Personally, I'm somewhat discouraged to see a company I once held in high regard

[CLOSED] [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Thanks to all participating. Due to response from Datastax legal rep, this proposal at this moment considered "hostile" fork and hence no longer open for discussion. - Henry On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Hi All, > > Please find below a

Re: Can you un-open-source a product? Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think Apache should not take an active part in any forks, as it could ruin the long-standing approval with the commercial community. However I think going the Jenkins fork route is the way for these communities that want to move forward: Move to GitHub, change the name & logo, clean up IP,

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I like the re-licensing threat get it forked on github and prove to them there is a willing community out there! Tom On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:17 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > I'd leave it open for now. I imagine/hope there are enough people aware of > this thread that

Can you un-open-source a product? Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

neral@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal >> >> With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this DISCUSS >> thread >> until further updates, if any? >> >> On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I'd leave it open for now. I imagine/hope there are enough people aware of this thread that the sentiments expressed here might affect a change. -Taylor > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Henry Saputra wrote: > > With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this DISCUSS thread > until further updates, if any? > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com>

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

With obvious block due to Datastax response, shall I CLOSE this DISCUSS thread until further updates, if any? On Thursday, September 29, 2016, P. Taylor Goetz wrote: > For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support it. > > I would like to give them time to

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

For the record I'd be -1 as well unless DataStax chose to support it. I would like to give them time to change their mind though. -Taylor > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: >> ... >> They

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Sep 29, 2016 19:22, "P. Taylor Goetz" wrote: >... > They can block a move to the ASF, but they can’t block a fork of the project moving elsewhere. Strong communities will regroup and live on. DataStax' reluctance to allow it could very easily be interpreted as a rejection of

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yes, please read that thread, and my response. Yes, DataStax’ current response would make this a hostile fork, but I think they should be given a chance to reconsider their stance. The ASF doesn’t want to accept hostile forks. I understand and agree with that. They can block a move to the ASF,

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

ISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal Thanks, it shows up as separate thread so I missed it. On Thursday, September 29, 2016, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Thanks, it shows up as separate thread so I missed it. On Thursday, September 29, 2016, John D. Ament wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM Henry Saputra > > wrote: > > > Which other thread are you referring to? > > > > > A

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:40 PM Henry Saputra wrote: > Which other thread are you referring to? > > A response was received from DataStax legal.

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Ah the other Jadon from Datastax. Sorry, somehow the thread did not line up properly. On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Henry Saputra wrote: > Which other thread are you referring to? > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Greg Stein

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Which other thread are you referring to? On Thursday, September 29, 2016, Greg Stein wrote: > -1 (binding) > > See other-thread from Jason at DataStax. This would be considered a hostile > fork, and as Bertrand noted, the ASF does not want to accept such. > > On Sep 28, 2016

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Jason, I am not a lawyer, and the following only represents my personal voice, not necessarily that of the ASF or my employer. While DataStax objecting to this proposal will potentially block the incubation of a project based on the Titan codebase at the ASF, it will not prevent the same

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

-1 (binding) See other-thread from Jason at DataStax. This would be considered a hostile fork, and as Bertrand noted, the ASF does not want to accept such. On Sep 28, 2016 21:02, "Henry Saputra" wrote: > Hi All, > > Please find below a proposal for a new incubator

[DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hello - my name is Jason Anderson with the DataStax legal group. On behalf of DataStax, I wanted to clarify any potential confusion regarding the DataStax position on Titan. As several posts here have explained, DataStax owns the copyright and trademark rights to Titan. DataStax does not

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

+1 -"P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: - To: general@incubator.apache.org From: "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com> Date: 09/29/2016 06:09PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal In my mind a "hostile fork" is a fork

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

In my mind a "hostile fork" is a fork of a project that goes against the wishes of the copyright holders and/or community. I don't consider this proposal to be a hostile fork. In this case the community is eager to see the project move forward, but the owners of both the copyright and the keys

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

11 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > Some clarification of what constitutes a “hostile fork” would indeed be > useful. > On a few occasions I have had discussions with communities on joining Apache, > and this oft

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Some clarification of what constitutes a “hostile fork” would indeed be useful. On a few occasions I have had discussions with communities on joining Apache, and this often comes up. We have relied on precedent — and in particular, on-the-record comments by board members on this list — and it

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

The precedent set by Bloodhound, and other projects suggest to me that you could simply move forward after giving legal@ a heads up and just seeing if there are any objections..or if lazy consensus just move forward and deal with it during Incubation. On 9/29/16, 11:33 AM, "Henry Saputra"

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Thanks for the insights, Ross, Bertrand, JB, and Chris, As Alan has mentioned before, we have attempted numerous times and channels to ask DataStax whether they opposed to us taking a fork to Apache with no avail. If anyone has connection to Datastax or especially the Titan team here, we would

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yep this thread sounds very similar to those discussions. I think we have the story emerging here that we can move forward with. Cheers, Chris On 9/29/16, 11:05 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" wrote: Hi Chris, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Chris Mattmann

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Chris, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > ...I have a bit of a different understanding. We only accept code > contributions > that want to be here This sounds similar to the discussions we had about Bloodhound back in early 2012 - Roy had some

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

> > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:23 AM > > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > > > > > Hi Susan, > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Bertrand, I have a bit of a different understanding. We only accept code contributions that want to be here. If the license for this project is ALv2 upstream from DataStax then the community coming here for Olympian may fork the project and so long as those committers and PMC part of the new

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

When we asked DataStax if they would sign a code grant, they were clear that they would not. When we asked if they were opposed to us taking a fork to Apache, we got no response, despite trying on multiple channels. I don’t know if this is enough to accept the podling or not, but it’s the

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

- > To: general@incubator.apache.org > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > Date: 09/29/2016 08:43AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > Hi Henry, > > Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? > > Else, the Software Grant Agreemen

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Wilmes [mailto:twil...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:12 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org; mbruk...@google.com > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > Hello Ross, > Per another one of the proposal submitters, Misha Brukman: "Datas

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

; > Ross > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:23 AM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > > > Hi S

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

10:23 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > Hi Susan, > > community interest is the key part for sure. But we would like to avoid any > trouble about the grant agreement, etc. > > Just my $0.01 > > Regar

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

net> Date: 09/29/2016 08:43AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal Hi Henry, Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? Else, the Software Grant Agreement won't be possible and it won't be able to easy to head to graduation. Regards JB On 09/29/2016 06:01 AM, Henry Saputra wr

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

net> > Date: 09/29/2016 08:43AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal > > Hi Henry, > > Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? > > Else, the Software Grant Agreement won't be possible and it won't be > able to easy to head to graduation. &

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

net> wrote: - To: general@incubator.apache.org From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> Date: 09/29/2016 08:43AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal Hi Henry, Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? Else, the Software Grant Agreement won't be possible and it wo

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi Henry, Is DataStax know and agree with the fork ? Else, the Software Grant Agreement won't be possible and it won't be able to easy to head to graduation. Regards JB On 09/29/2016 06:01 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: Hi All, Please find below a proposal for a new incubator podling, Apache

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: > ...This project will be a fork of Titan graph database project... > ...The project was created by company called Aurelius and was acquired by > Datstax... We only accept friendly forks, and it looks like Titan

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

+1 as a red flag, but not a blocker. For it to work, larger parts of the existing contributors need to be convinced to join the Apache effort. There are not license differences, so cross-pollination is possible. Another concern is the name "Olympian", the International Olympic Committee is well

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

On 29/09/2016 04:01, Henry Saputra wrote: > The project will be forked off the existing Titan code base. That is a red flag. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands,

[DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Hi All, Please find below a proposal for a new incubator podling, Apache Olympian, formerly Titan. Apache Olympian is software designed to support the processing of graphs so large that they require storage and computational capacities beyond what a single machine can provide. This project will