On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>...
> There's also this:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-775?
> focusedCommentId=14513325&page=com.atlassian.jira.
> plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14513325
>
> which I find very intriguing.
>
> But I'
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>... Do no evil...
>
> Of course. As long as everybody agrees on the definition of "evil" ;-)
>
> Hence my proposal to briefly document best practices about how to
> collect user data
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>... Do no evil...
Of course. As long as everybody agrees on the definition of "evil" ;-)
Hence my proposal to briefly document best practices about how to
collect user data in a non-evil way.
Maybe adding a few notes to
https://issues.apache.or
Hi Roman, Greg, *
Am .06.2017, 07:20 Uhr, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik :
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
I recall a company that started to list out each of things NOT to do.
Item
after item after item, to develop a policy. After a few dozen such, one
guy
piped up, "this is
Haha... I'm no Director any more. Such policy is above my pay grade :-P
On Jun 8, 2017 22:20, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I recall a company that started to list out each of things NOT to do. Item
> after item after item, to develop a policy. A
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> I recall a company that started to list out each of things NOT to do. Item
> after item after item, to develop a policy. After a few dozen such, one guy
> piped up, "this is ridiculous" ... It just isn't tractable. So he suggested
> a simple rep
I recall a company that started to list out each of things NOT to do. Item
after item after item, to develop a policy. After a few dozen such, one guy
piped up, "this is ridiculous" ... It just isn't tractable. So he suggested
a simple replacement:
Do no evil.
On Jun 8, 2017 21:13, "Roman Shapos
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> ...Who owns release policy? I presume it's VP Legal, which would suggest
>> legal-discuss...
>
> I don't think our release policy is relevant here.
Actually, that's what I'm tryin
Out of curiousity: Do we ever let domains like this expire?
Greets,
Myrle
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Makes sense to me.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 6/8/17, 1:42 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacr
Makes sense to me.
Cheers,
Chris
On 6/8/17, 1:42 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Raphael Bircher
> wrote:
> > Am .06.2017, 09:43 Uhr, schrieb Bertrand
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Raphael Bircher
> wrote:
> > Am .06.2017, 09:43 Uhr, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz
> > :
> >> ...Am I missing something?
> >
> > Yea, as far as I know it is in a old version w
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Raphael Bircher
wrote:
> Am .06.2017, 09:43 Uhr, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz
> :
>> ...Am I missing something?
>
> Yea, as far as I know it is in a old version who is in the archive, right. I
> think this makes some difference...
Ah yes you're right, we might want
Hi all,
Am .06.2017, 09:43 Uhr, schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz
:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
...Who owns release policy? I presume it's VP Legal, which would
suggest legal-discuss...
I don't think our release policy is relevant here.
The issue is a project releasing
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> ...Who owns release policy? I presume it's VP Legal, which would suggest
> legal-discuss...
I don't think our release policy is relevant here.
The issue is a project releasing software that a) collects user data
without an explicit opt-in, an
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:55 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
> > > legal-discuss@ is the best place to bring any specific requests from
> > > project(s) to change the actual policy itself. But first it would be
> > > useful to get some rough c
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> > legal-discuss@ is the best place to bring any specific requests from
> > project(s) to change the actual policy itself. But first it would be
> > useful to get some rough consensus on some of those specific requests
> > here from the I
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 6/7/17 4:20 PM:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 07/06/17 17:53, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman
Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 6/7/17 4:20 PM:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 07/06/17 17:53, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Joh
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 07/06/17 17:53, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>>> On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> While these are a
On 07/06/17 17:53, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>> On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're
relevant
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>> > While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're
>> > relevant to incubator only and probably should have rem
On 2017-06-06 11:59 (-0500), Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're
> > relevant to incubator only and probably should have remained on the
> > legal-discuss list. Ignite graduated
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
> ...NetBeans has various anonymous data collections such as UI gestures and
> actions logging, and optional uploading, sort of like GA, which tells us
> what is or is not being used, auto update, exception reporting, driven by
> users deciding
NetBeans has various anonymous data collections such as UI gestures and
actions logging, and optional uploading, sort of like GA, which tells us
what is or is not being used, auto update, exception reporting, driven by
users deciding to send anonymously or login to attach their name, which I
do tha
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:25 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're
> relevant to incubator only and probably should have remained on the
> legal-discuss list. Ignite graduated ~2 years ago. The incubator probably
> doesn't have an opinion
While there may be technical issues out there, the policy issues can
have time for a thorough discussion before we make policy updates.
Alex Harui wrote on 6/5/17 11:25 PM:
> Is the use of Google Analytics also prohibited by #4?
That sounds like a different issue, unless a project is shipping doc
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...So far it seems that there's an agreement on that having this type of
> capability...
>1 ... in the source code disabled by default -- totally OK
>2 ... in the source code enabled by default -- questionable, but OK
>3 ... in
While I am completely agree with your point, and the Ignite graduation
is the water under the bridge, this is in an important point for the
current podlings to consider. Perhaps it could be done elsewhere as
well, but I am not sure where would be the best place for it.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Cos
--
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
While these are all great discussion points, I don't believe they're
relevant to incubator only and probably should have remained on the
legal-discuss list. Ignite graduated ~2 years ago. The incubator probably
doesn't have an opinion about this, but it's good to know that the policy
may change (
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 stricter than for source code (other than the obvious effect on
> licensing when you bundle in dependencies).
Btw, this one is serious enough that I'd
Thanks for the explanation, Roman. I had no idea that policies for hosted
binaries were stricter than for source code (other than the obvious effect on
licensing when you bundle in dependencies).
Julian
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM,
Hi all,
Am .06.2017, 04:47 Uhr, schrieb Roman Shaposhnik :
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think
we should restrict what the binaries do.
Well, but that's not how we treat licensing for example. For example
Thanks Greg. I have already started the conversation on private@ignite
and opened IGNITE-5413
--
Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we
> should restrict what the binaries do.
Well, but that's not how we treat licensing for example. For example
-- there's plenty of ASF project that
allow GPL licensed exte
The Infrastructure team is taking this to the Apache Ignite PMC. This is
completely improper.
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we
> should restrict what the binaries do. The question is whether the communit
If the binaries are built from the released source code I don’t think we should
restrict what the binaries do. The question is whether the community is aware
of what the code is doing, and considers it to be in the best interests of the
project.
The answer seems to be yes, and yes. I saw that t
Hi!
after seeing this thread on legal-discuss:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201706.mbox/%3CCAGJoAUn-hiE89mWObh1Lb2S_vgqQJ%3DDC%3D1P_V1REQ9hUERCFog%40mail.gmail.com%3E
I'd like to ask a policy related question.
What we currently have is a whole bunch of binarie
38 matches
Mail list logo
