With the blocking (vestiges of MPL code) jiras fixed and the blessing
from legal-discuss on how to proceed re: missing BSD licensing headers:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201603.mbox/%3C9D1AF43C-370B-4E58-B0EF-2E29D242F50B%40jaguNET.com%3E
I propose we move ahead
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.
At this point I would like to cancel the vote on MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1. The
following JIRAs have been identified based on comments received; they have
either been fixed or are in the process of being fixed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAD
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
>> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
>> a can of worms.
>
>> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
>> legal-dis
Hi,
> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
> a can of worms.
> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
> legal-discuss), something to the effect of…
Could the files in question b
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h,
>> .hpp, .py. .cpp files)
>
> That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
> they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the li
Hi,
> I don't think I can agree agree. While you're correct in principle,
> in practice we're talking about extra 3 lines in the NOTICE file
Clearly not a major issue - just pointing it out.
> That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
> they have the BSD header.
A co
Hi Justin,
as usual thanks a million for your thorough review. A couple of points
though.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry -1 (binding) for possible inclusion of MPL licensed source code in the
> source
> release and uncertainty of licensing of files missing
Hi,
Sorry -1 (binding) for possible inclusion of MPL licensed source code in the
source release and uncertainty of licensing of files missing headers.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is missing a couple of things
- NOTICE includes unnece
Hello Incubator PMC,
The Apache MADlib (incubating) community has voted on and approved the
proposal to release MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1.
The voting result is available at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzSkXyGVQSKrY99zc9UmTE_NfXcYrxDGB%3DCMBmuCKLxb
