On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
>...
> So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for
> their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to
> differentiate it from an official release of the foundation. In the real
> world the questi
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
...
> == External Dependencies ==...
There's some GPL/LGPL stuff in there, IMO the proposal should include
a plan for coping with those.
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...most of the core developers are currently NOT affiliated
> with the ASF and would require new ICLAs before committing to the
> project
...
> == Affiliations ==
...
> * Pivotal: everyone else on this proposal...
So IIUC that's abo
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> ...I think it is somewhat amusing, that this is actually discussed ~20years
> after Apache group is formed...
Amusing indeed ;-)
In theory http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html should be our Whole
Truth about releases. It probably answers
> 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
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 parallelism
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)
wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> Great news!
>
> BTW, it might be a invalid URL for the proposal. Should be
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/H
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:33 PM, 김영우 (Youngwoo Kim) 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 it is:
ht
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 wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to start a discussion on accepting HAWQ
> into ASF Incubator. The
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski 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 repositories,
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 project
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler
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 statement
> (though I may be mis
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
wrote:
> I do not agree with this interpretation when viewed f
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 Apac
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher 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 by the author, a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies
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 environment, and distribut
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
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 A
On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
> >
> > >It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented
a
> > >'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" 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
On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" 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. IIRC, Justin re
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" 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 contributor commit
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.
= Horn
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 wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald
> wrote:
>> So wh
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Gavin McDonald 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 there in the first pl
> On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:52 pm, Jim Jagielski 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 right no
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> 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,
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski 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 fil
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski 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
'publication'
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 wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> while answering a question on release policie
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
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 the signing
ne
31 matches
Mail list logo
