On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:38 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Gosh i'm pretty sure we _don't_ allow things like (L)GPL dependencies >> in Incubator releases, we allow them in the source in SVN but i don't >> recall any releases like that. > > I know AOO had interactions with Legal regarding dmake, dictionaries and so > on, though I don't recall exactly what went into their release. I would be > surprised if any category X dependencies have wound up in an incubating > release without Legal's involvement. > > Lucy's early incubating releases had two Perl-licensed (Artistic/GPL) > dependencies (which were not bundled, but had to be downloaded and installed > separately by the consumer). We sought a variance from Legal and got specific > approval from the Legal VP for our plan, which involved ditching both of the > problematic dependencies prior to graduation: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86 > > Are there other examples?
The one that I had in mind was Roller. Several of its incubating releases had a hard dependency on Hibernate. They were required to clean it up before graduation, of course. You can look at the archives back in 2006 when it was incubating. In particular, there is one sent to private@incubator that I would refer you to: http://s.apache.org/c04 [only usable by ASF Members] >> Anyway thats beside the point, ok so lets have this be a precedent >> that sets Incubator policy - we now have some wiggle room while >> incubating to do a release that violates ASF release policy as long as >> it will be fixed soon in another release and definitely before >> graduating. > > It seems that with regards to this Bloodhound release, the issue is restricted > to LICENSE/NOTICE, an area where ASF policies are notoriously unclear and > conformance is arguably spotty even among TLPs. I've given some bad info in the past, but after the last go-round (thanks Marvin), I feel that I've got a better handle on it. And that's the feedback that I've now provided to the BH people. > So long as the licenses of > all dependencies are being obeyed (e.g. no license headers or mandatory files > stripped from source files) and usage is compatible with ASF policy (no > category X dependencies, etc), All good here. > I agree with the judgment call that an > incubating release need not be held up simply to move the text of the license > from LICENSE to NOTICE or vice versa. > > IMO, this is different from releases with category X dependencies, where ASF > policies are clear and conformance is very high among TLPs. I don't see that > the Incubator should consider this vote a precedent for overturning arbitrary > ASF policy. For TLPs, I totally agree. For projects that are incubating... they are NOT ASF projects by definition. That is why we've allowed a bit of wiggle. In any case, Bloodhound isn't requesting any funny deps. Just getting a release out there which some already-known issues. That's why it got my +1, and recommendation to just go with 0.1.0 rather than spinning up a new tarball. Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
