Re: [DISCUSS] NuttX Proposal

Might be less risk and disruption for a few experienced ASF folks to go "live amongst" the NuttX folks where they are now and verify that that the founder's authority and reputation will not result in a BDFL effect. Just a thought, -Alex On 12/2/19, 12:48 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: Very we

Re: Podlings & IP Clearance

IIRC, the main thing that matters is that all incoming code that was developed outside the ASF gets cleared. For podlings, there is frequently one big code donation that eventually gets turned into a release. The podling gets to put the code in a repo and then clear it. I believe that's mainl

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

IMO, the key change as already been made: There is now a WIP-disclaimer. AFAICT, the rest of this thread has been an attempt to create an objective process around a subjective topic (in this case risk). The better use of time may be to just launch an experiment by making the one change suggest

Re: New disclaimer text

Suggestion: The DISCLAIMER references a detached copy of the DISCLAIMER at dist.a.o/releases/incubator/project and that detached copy is the one that gets updated with late breaking stuff. Re-rolling required re-GPG-signing, new hashes, etc. -Alex On 7/3/19, 2:08 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" wrote:

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

FWIW, I reconcile it as: Incubator is a PMC and must record a business decision to call something an ASF release in order to place that release under the legal protection of the ASF. ASF releases may have policy non-compliance issues. No TLP can decide on its own to never comply with policy.

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On 6/27/19, 10:57 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: But VP legal said as much the other day. "we can NOT allow any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP.” I interpret that to mean that a TLP must eventually get around to fixing non-compliance. A TLP cannot stop attempting to fin

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

While you've been going through the history and other docs: Does it actually say somewhere that a true ASF release MUST NOT contain any non-compliance of policy? Or is it possible that the communities must fix some non-compliance issues right away and can fix others later? Then it isn't about

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

On 6/24/19, 9:12 AM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: > What kinds of policy violations truly affect the legal shield if the non-compliance: You're asking the wrong question. You're still asking the TLP question. I'm asking the TLP question to understand how big the difference is betwe

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

But, IMO, the reason the question went to VP Legal is that it doesn't really matter what the IPMC thinks if their "business decision" will have an impact on the "Legal Shield" and the insurance premiums that go with it. So I think the question got lost on legal-discuss. The "space of options"

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

IMO, there's an actual test case going on right now. On 6/14, the Weex folks asked about an LGPL dependency which became LEGAL-464. Personally, I think it could be classified as a "runtime/platform" so that the CatX rules don't apply. But they have been held up for 9 days and counting. Who c

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

It all makes sense to me. I think there are two key points that are driving all of this discussion: "5. Disclaimers generally don't remove liability" IANAL so I don't know if that's true or not. For sure there are lots of disclaimers in the world. I do not know the history of the current DIS

Re: Incubation Pain Points

e the maturity model. But add a statement that a project could negotiate an alternative maturity model during incubation as long as the IPMC agrees and it meets the invariants. 3) allow some non-conforming podling releases with special approvals. On Tue, Jun 18, 201

Re: Incubation Pain Points

On 6/18/19, 5:03 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:18 PM Jim Jagielski wrote: >> ...prepping the existing community regarding what "moving to the ASF means" is the job of the Champio

Re: LGPL dependency

Some things I don't think have been mentioned in this thread so far: 1) Even if you make Webkit optional by offering V8, I believe the ASF criteria for "optional" includes "less than half of your users will use that option" and so if Webkit offers better performance and most of the users select

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt release policy violations to a future release, then so can podlings, and the IPMC can let more things go without really needing another decision from the board.

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

licensed or is restricted from being used in anything that competes with smart plumbing accessories. Getting the foundation to relax that attitude of no downstream restrictions is going to be nearly impossible. On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Alex Harui wrote:

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I don't recall any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the legal-shield and the insurance rates for it are. Ted and Roy (in other threads) seem to have said that Ted's bucket #1 is the only thing that is a true sh

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

IMO, there could be several kinds of scenarios under the category of "copyright violations". Such as: 1) Taking something under someone else's copyright and claiming it under a different copyright. 2) No mention of the copyright or the entity owning the IP at all anywhere in the release files

Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases

IMO, it all comes down to the definition of "serious issues". Some say that the only real blockers should be legal issues about the right to distribute some IP. My 2 cents, -Alex On 6/7/19, 8:29 AM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote: On 6/7/2019 11:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Fri,

Re: Podling releases and release policy

Given that [1] says "may" and not "will" and that Roy has said that if it isn't illegal and better than the last release it is ok to ship a release candidate, maybe the ASF should adopt the approach that every release policy issue that isn't about the legal right to distribute some IP can be add

Re: Podling status Copyright section

ome in under an ICLA. HTH, -Alex On 5/15/19, 4:27 PM, "Matt Sicker" wrote: You can add a software grant to a CCLA concurrently, but not vice versa. On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:28, sebb wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 06:55, Alex Harui wrote: > &g

Re: Podling status Copyright section

I do not like the words "transfer rights". It could be interpreted as transfer of copyright. Copyright of existing code is not transferred to the ASF, AIUI. How about "Check to make sure that an SGA or CCLA has been received." I don't like hypotheticals, but I can imagine some individual star

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

As a peanut, IMO, it could be that the root problem is that the drive-by folks are discussing topics that are too subjective at a critical time (to get a release out), not the number of folks who can drive-by. I'm not even in the IPMC, and I can still follow general@ and offer opinions. Podlin

Re: Welcome Wagon

Hi Dave, IMO, the Incubator is the "welcome wagon". Unfortunately, it often greets new neighbors with a huge list of policies which is not welcoming. That makes the incubator more iike a bad Homeowner's Association from a movie. Or maybe a Boot Camp where only the tough survive and everyone

Re: Binary jars in the source release which are only for testing

Or, can you change your build script to download the jar instead of packaging it in the source release? On 2/23/19, 6:02 PM, "Ted Dunning" wrote: Willem, This issue of embedded binaries for testing purposes has come up before. Examples include network intercepts for testing ma

Re: licenses and copyrights of dependencies

IIRC, we use the food allergy analogy for these situations. AIUI, the goal is for the top-level LICENSE to make it convenient for someone to see what the ingredients are, because some folks are "allergic" to certain licenses. I think you can still use "pointers" instead of copying full texts o

Re: How to review so-called "binary releases"?

Hi Greg, I think the fact that LICENSE policy that Justin linked to applies to convenience binaries creates confusion about reviewing binaries. My 2 cents, -Alex On 10/25/18, 6:39 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote: On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:25 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > Jim, you’re re-itera

Re: How to review so-called "binary releases"?

Julian, Since binaries are provided as a convenience with no official standing, it doesn't matter if the "binaries" are "verified" or not. They could contain a virus or other malware. Users take the risks. However, folks have used the policy you reference to come up with several checks such

Re: Does Zipkin need to sign a SGA ?

I may be mis-remembering, but I thought that an SGA wasn't required for ALv2 code. OpenZipkin appears to be ALv2. The licenses in the SGA are pretty much the same as in ALv2. I thought that for ALv2 code, we mostly cared that the community documented that it was willing to make the move from w

Re: Who has the experiences to assemble NOTICE file?

Writing code is error prone too. Just like code, make a good effort, let the code reviewers catch things, make more changes, review it again. The key thing is to do the work and get the reviews in a timely fashion instead of at release vote time. No big deal if you miss something. That's why the

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

FWIW, some build and test processes have a "generate-sources" and/or "generate-test-sources" step. Have you considered having a step in your test processes copy the source test files into a temporary folder and remove the headers as part of that step? Then you may not need to change the test ha

Re: [VOTE] Do not accept software grants with conditionals or exclusions

I don't have a vote here, but I"m now confused about what problem is being solved. Is it, as Stian says, that an entity is being lazy and did not attempt to review the contents of the grant before donating? I thought the goal is to just keep folks from bothering us with additional language on the

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

could not have coped >with. If a project has the capacity, sure. Not all project will. > >Set the expectations too high and it is implicitly a filter for a >certain kind of project in size and structure. > > Andy > > >> >> Julian >> >> >>&g

Re: Urgent: Regarding Java package name change to org.apache.*

From the peanut gallery: Does the PPMC get to decide what constitutes a "very good reason" or does the IPMC and after graduation, the board? Flex has not changed its packages in the 5 years at Apache. We felt backward compatibility was and is a "very good reason". It was way more important to n

Re: ASF hosted binaries collecting user data without an explicit opt-in

Is the use of Google Analytics also prohibited by #4? -Alex On 6/5/17, 8:16 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> Thanks for the explanation, Roman. I had no idea that policies for >>hosted binaries >> were strict

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

On 5/1/17, 2:00 PM, "Bolke de Bruin" wrote: > >In Python we are used to install through so called source distributions >“sdist”. Package managers (e.g. pip) use the filename to determine >whether to download a new package and if they do they examine the >contents of the package to find out it th

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

On 5/1/17, 11:44 AM, "Bolke de Bruin" wrote: > >> On 1 May 2017, at 17:36, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/1/17, 7:44 AM, "Hitesh Shah" wrote: >> >>> Hi Justin, >>> >>> Currently, the podling has

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

On 5/1/17, 7:44 AM, "Hitesh Shah" wrote: >Hi Justin, > >Currently, the podling has been modifying the contents and hence this >discussion. I agree with Justin and others that modification after the vote is not a good thing. So my assumption was that if you add your 2a step and modify the bina

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

gt;with version 1.8.1 ( with only 1.8.1 being published on a successful vote) > >OR > >4a) After PPMC vote passes, use the original source and modified binaries >for the IPMC vote and therefore the IPMC vote is on the final bits being >published. > >Any comments? > >th

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

> >3. There is no “separate” build script. Pip will just install a binary >(“wheel”) or uses the source package (as shown above). Both are used >interchangeable by users. We only distribute source packages at the >moment. > >@Alex: I have to think a little bit more about what you wrote, but it is

Re: Airflow voting on release artifacts

On 4/25/17, 1:43 AM, "Bolke de Bruin" wrote: >Hi Bertrand, > >> On 25 Apr 2017, at 09:04, Bertrand Delacretaz >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Chris Riccomini >> wrote: >>> ...Hitesh recently raised the issue that the artifact that passes the >>>vote >>> MUST be the

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

On 2/24/17, 4:40 PM, "Enis Söztutar" wrote: > >On a separate note, I wish there was a fast-track for these kind of >projects which can start internally in Apache without too much of a >hassle. Check the archives for "Straight to TLP" discussions. I thought it was possible these days. -Alex

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)

On 2/15/17, 4:37 PM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >Dan, > >So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to >shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out >the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If >however, you're l

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)

On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" wrote: >Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to >http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps : > >`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the >distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:` >

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On 1/23/17, 9:51 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >> >> The gradle wrapper and similar are also not permitted. Build processes >> need to bootstrap it. >> >> >I would like to understand why, from a legal standpoint, these are not >allowed. I don't think it is a legal issue. It is an ASF policy that

Re: [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names

Sorry for top-posting. It's always been interesting to me that the ASF says that it only releases source code, but still has policy about the contents of convenience binaries such as [6]. So, I suppose the ASF could dictate naming of binary packages. I know very little about Maven, but in my min

Re: [DISCUSS] Concur for Apache Incubator

On 11/23/16, 6:19 AM, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" wrote: >On 23 November 2016 at 11:40, Roman Shaposhnik >wrote: >> FIWI: these were my thoughts exactly. In fact, for a second there I >>thought >> that SAP was donating Concur codebase. >> In the spirit of bikeshedding I propose Apache Thor (or Heyer

Re: [DISCUSS] China Contribution.

Educate, trust and verify. IMO, there shouldn't be a rule that you can't write in non-English on dev@ or user@. You just have to understand the impact of doing so. Sometimes it will make sense to do so, other times, not. You have to know who in your community knows what languages. In Seattle,

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

On 9/27/16, 8:38 AM, "gch...@gmail.com on behalf of Greg Chase" wrote: >In Apache Geode, we are trying to be liberal about bringing in new >committers. Anyone who shows an interest, and a series of well formatted >pull requests that follow are code guidelines are pretty quickly nominated >to be

Re: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

It is an interesting idea. I thought that the initial committers list provided the set of people who could define the merit to approve other new committers. The mentors may not be familiar enough with the technology and people to make the decision with the "Flavor" the community wants. The only

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

On 9/26/16, 1:53 AM, "Mark Struberg" wrote: > >No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively >asked the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. AIUI, IBM could give you or one of their employees who participate in your project permission to move their (

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are: If you leave someone off the list: - it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo. - that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on the list. (so don't leave off the person who can quickly

Re: Licensing requirement for binary artifacts without transitive deps

On 9/20/16, 11:50 AM, "Donald Szeto" wrote: >Hi all, > >I am preparing my first Apache release and am wondering if I need to check >licenses of all transitive deps if the release contains: > >- a single source tarball; >- a few binary JAR artifacts on Nexus that contain no transitive deps in >e

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 9/19/16, 11:12 PM, "Mark Struberg" wrote: >Status update from the import: > >du -hs .git >3.6G > > >Could not import to github due to: > >Delta compression using up to 4 threads. >Komprimiere Objekte: 100% (659268/659268), Fertig. >remote: fatal: pack exceeds maximum allowed size >fatal: The

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 9/19/16, 8:55 AM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Mark Struberg > wrote: >>But we don't yet know what is part of the hg repo and what is part of >>the Oracle contribution. >> >> What would happen if someone e.g. did commit some GP

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 9/19/16, 8:13 AM, "Wade Chandler" wrote: >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 11:04, Alex Harui ><mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" ><mailto:strub...@yahoo.de.invalid>> wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 9/19/16, 6:16 AM, "Mark Struberg" wrote: >We also need to check whether the author and contributor flags are >properly moved over by the import. We don't like to loose any IP >provenance... Etc, etc. Isn't IP provenance reset by the SGA? It was for Adobe Flex. Only a couple of committers

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 9/17/16, 8:54 AM, "Jochen Theodorou" wrote: >On 17.09.2016 10:23, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: >> Nightly builds is all that's needed, indeed, no one needs to announce >>them, >> they should simply be available. Agreed it's important to distinguish >> between nightly builds and official releases

Re: What goes in the NOTICES file?

On 9/2/16, 12:08 PM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >All, > >I was wondering if someone can point me to a resource that clearly >identifies what goes into the NOTICES file for a source and binary >release? I've seen Justin's video, but would be great to also have it >written down. I assume you've see

Re: Dual-licensed logo PNG (CC-BY 3.0, LGPL 3.0)? [TAVERNA]

Since Common Workflow code appears to be under ALv2, it might be worth contacting that community and asking them to re-license the logo under ALv2 as well and explain how the current logo licensing makes ALv2 consumption more difficult if they want their logo included in downstream releases. My 2

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

ting such that there isn't as much RM magic that can get lost if key folks leave. Just a thought, -Alex > >On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 1:59 AM Alex Harui wrote: > >> One more thought on this: Right now the 'requirement' is for PMC >>members >> to be able

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

One more thought on this: Right now the 'requirement' is for PMC members to be able to take the source package and build the binary before voting +1. What if the 'requirement' became that the PMC members must be able to take the source package and build both the binary and the source package? IOW

Re: Ease of release process and exit criteria

On 8/19/16, 7:08 AM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote: >Bertrand Delacretaz wrote on 8/19/16 5:57 AM: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> ...I'm thinking of a graduation criteria long the lines of: >>> "Is the release process clearly documented to the point that so

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come from? I think that's what Justin is asking. On 8/9/16, 4:32 P

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

On 8/9/16, 3:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the >> headers is not an option. > >Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they >were originally under? IANAL, but in my mind, yes. The header is

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

On 8/9/16, 1:46 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> >> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" >> wrote: >> >&

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean >wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark >>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could >>

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

On 8/1/16, 6:52 PM, "Christopher" wrote: >> My recommendation is that fluo.io be donated to the ASF and a new domain >> name chosen for the non-ASF community backed site. >> > >We'll need to discuss this further, but I think our preferred option is >going to be (in order of preference): > >1. G

Re: [VOTE] $podling.apache.org is the same as $podling.incubator.apache.org

On 6/29/16, 9:13 AM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote: > >> >> Hmmm not a bad idea. I'd still like to see us re-double the effort on >> resolving branding issues on the websites. Ultimately I'd like for >>mentors >> to own it, but that doesn't seem to happen due to mentor availability. > >It's clear the

Re: Request to review updated License (Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating))

IMO, http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps says the blurb about JQuery goes in LICENSE, not NOTICE. On 6/20/16, 12:14 PM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >Lines like this are contents for the notice file, not license file: > > >This product includes jQuery (http://jquery.org - M

Re: Toree's One Release Constraint

On 5/20/16, 9:32 AM, "Edward Capriolo" wrote: >Yes if you are using a feature specific to a specific product it is >obvious >even if you wrap cruft around it. however when I see something that uses >"rabbit mq" i generally think to wrap an interface around it so I can >replace with Apache Kafka

Re: Toree's One Release Constraint

On 5/20/16, 8:57 AM, "Edward Capriolo" wrote: >" You could argue that it makes the dependency optional" >Yes that is what I am saying. Like in a JDBC application you may be >connecting to postgres or mysql you are not concerned how those are >licensed because you are linked to the shim/driver.

Re: Toree's One Release Constraint

On 5/20/16, 7:23 AM, "Edward Capriolo" wrote: >Would it be acceptable to develop a shim layer toree can link to that and >the provider is dropped in at runtime like the jdbc interface? AIUI, a shim doesn't break the dependency chain. You could argue that it makes the dependency optional, but

Re: [VOTE] [FINERACT] 0.1.0.incubating for release

On 4/14/16, 12:49 AM, "Adi Raju" wrote: >We cannot even depend on cat-x licensed libraries? IMO, it depends on what you mean by "depend". There are some exceptions discussed here [1] HTH, -Alex [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html -

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

On 3/7/16, 2:38 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: >>>Agreed. Sebb's recommendation, AIUI, was to simply mention in LICENSE >>> that there is a non-ASF AL bundle without copying the entire LICENSE. > >That’s what I was objecting to. LICENSE is for licenses. If notice is >required, then use NOTICE. Hm

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

On 3/7/16, 12:26 PM, "Craig Russell" wrote: >As I understand it, LICENSE is for licenses. Period. If advertising is >required, the NOTICE file is used. Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "consider NOTICE" I meant that any NOTICE for the non-ASF AL dependency may have content th

Re: LICENSE info for ALv2, not ASF

On 3/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Steve Varnau" wrote: >Hi, > > > >I’m compiling information for LICENSE file for a binary distribution. We >(Trafodion) have a bundled dependency that is Apache-2.0 license, but not >part of ASF. Do we need to call these out in the license file, or only >call out the thing

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Brooklyn - CLI

since the intent is clear. > >Craig > >> On Mar 7, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/7/16, 6:05 AM, "Richard Downer" wrote: >> >>> Alex, Justin, all, >>> >>> Thank you for your comment

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Brooklyn - CLI

On 3/7/16, 6:05 AM, "Richard Downer" wrote: >Alex, Justin, all, > >Thank you for your comments. With your comments in mind, I will make >this statement for the record: > >Regarding the subject of the Software Grant Agreement, download link: >https://github.com/brooklyncentral/brooklyn-cli/archi

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.0 RC3

On 3/1/16, 5:22 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: >On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> > I seem to recall reading some place or another that pointers >> > to licenses in the forms of URLs or textual references are frowned >>upon, >> > because licenses may change over tim

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Brooklyn - CLI

On 3/1/16, 12:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> Sorry if I'm missing something, but it sounds like Justin found these >> files in the zip referenced by the Grant. > >The files are clearly marked as BSD/MIT licensed and who the copyright >owner is IMO (but I could be wrong) I don’t think t

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Brooklyn - CLI

On 3/1/16, 1:36 AM, "Richard Downer" wrote: >Justin, > >On 29 February 2016 at 22:36, Justin Mclean >wrote: >>> See http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/brooklyn-cli.html >>> >> I notice the code contains MIT and BSD licensed code

Re: Must name and copyright of bundled (other) ASF artifacts be attributed in NOTICE file?

On 2/6/16, 8:29 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: > >So the question is, what parts of NOTICE pertaining to Apache projects >must we >propagate, and what portions can we omit? I'd say that the name of the >Apache >project and the copyright statement ought to be bubbled up. > >And this interpretatio

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 2/4/16, 3:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >A fair number of non ASF Apache software is usually missing a NOTICE file >or has other issues. What do we do when you bundle a non ASF Apache >license software that is missing a NOTICE file? Nothing or be a little >more polite or assume a minimal NOT

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

On 1/28/16, 3:26 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré" wrote: >I prefer Beam ;) I like the name and the logic behind choosing it. Some concerns are that a Google search of "Beam Software" turned up [1] and [2] among others, which might mean that Apache Beam won't work as a TLP name. "Beam" is a good st

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 1/26/16, 12:07 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> In this email [4], Sebb recommends mentioning non-ASF Apache-licensed >> bundled dependencies in LICENSE. > >I think you are misrepresenting Sebb here but I'll let him clarify if >need be. > >The case you refer to the file in question was a

Re: Confusion over NOTICE vs LICENSE files

On 1/25/16, 6:19 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: >Hey folks, > >I'm working on tidying up the source for Apache Kudu (incubating) in order >to prepare for our first ASF release, and ran into a couple bits of >confusion: > >1) In the case that we've borrowed code from another Apache 2.0 licensed >proje

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Dataflow Incubator Proposal

On 1/22/16, 10:58 AM, "Frances Perry" wrote: >Crunch started as a clone of FlumeJava, which was Google internal. In the >meantime inside Google, FlumeJava evolved into Dataflow. So all three >share >a number of concepts like PCollections, ParDo, DoFn, etc. However, >Dataflow >adds a number of n

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01 (incubating)

On 1/21/16, 11:52 PM, "Daniel Dekany" wrote: >Friday, January 22, 2016, 1:08:36 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > >> If may be (but unlikely IMO) that this applies [1]. Best to ask on >> legal discuss to confirm. > >I have red the related ASF documents back then, and I don't understand >how can this l

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Joshua Incubator Proposal - Machine Translation Toolkit

External is good news. I'm not sure how much leeway there is in the following quote from [1], but what percentage of your users are currently using an all-ASF-compatible set of projects? The question to ask yourself in this situation is: * "Will the majority of users want to use my

Re: Milagro trademark

I would recommend asking this on trademarks@a.o. I would also recommend two separate transactions. IIRC, the SGA language is not the right language for the trademark assignment. Some other template should be used. Also, I believe it is in the best interests of the Milagro trademark owner to mak

Re: Post mortem request for the handling of the Corinthia podling (was Re: FYI, I have subscribed to this list and to your private list)

Probably too late, but some comments in-line. On 1/15/16, 6:55 AM, "Peter Kelly" wrote: > >However, one important factor which really killed things for us was the >inability to use Qt. > >The desktop app was the main priority, however. > >To do a cross-platform desktop app, and to do it properly,

Re: Request for advice on code donation

: for any file jbnote touched, keep/push the existing >>header >> down and prepend the standard ASF header; all other untouched files, >> replace any header with ours. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> > Looks like

Re: Request for advice on code donation

Looks like the repo was placed under the Apache License long before this individual contributed. So, IMO, if you are convinced this individual and his employer knew his contributions were placed under the Apache License you could gamble and accept his contributions. If you get an objection later,

Re: File headers for third party utility code

On 1/4/16, 3:41 PM, "Todd Lipcon" wrote: > >Right, I guess I'm not sure what qualifies minor vs major. In some cases, >we've done trivial edits like putting things in a "kudu" namespace or >removing some portability code. In other cases, we've made more >substantial >alterations to fit our codeb

Re: File headers for third party utility code

On 1/4/16, 3:02 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: > >> 2) In the cases that we've made non-trivial changes to the source, we >> should additionally add the ASF copyright notice at the top of the file, >> and amend the original copyright statement with the words "Som

Re: [VOTE] Accept Metron into Apache Incubator

Are any of the GitHub contributors to OpenSoc still at Cisco? That might help. -Alex On 12/3/15, 10:18 AM, "Owen O'Malley" wrote: >On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Debo Dutta (dedutta) >wrote: > >> Would like to know who in Cisco was asked actually. I am from Cisco and >> can help. > > >Debo,

Re: apache-website-template git commit: Add LICENSE and NOTICE files

Hi Roberta, Can you ask this on your other thread and include more information about whether this is a file that has been donated to the ASF or is third-party? On 12/3/15, 8:40 AM, "Roberta Marton" wrote: >I have a question regarding the NOTICE and LICENSE file as it pertains to >an >MIT or BSD

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

we can discuss separately the steps to become a Committer. We would love to have you come be part of Apache Flex if you are interested in making further contributions. Thanks, Alex Harui, for the Apache Flex PMC. - End Draft 2 -

Re: Adopting non-ASF AL projects (was Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal)

On 11/28/15, 6:58 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: >On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> On 11/27/15, 7:34 AM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote: >> >>>Having a TLP take over a codebase *without* the explicit consent of all >contribu

  1   2   3   >