incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:41:54 GMT
I don't think you should release something that doesn't have testing.
IMO you should make addressing this a blocker for the release.

I don't see anything on the incubator site, but this strongly implies:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-release-candidate

Patrick

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emailed legal-discuss and it sounds like we have to pull the class for now.
> It'll need to either be replaced entirely or be pulled in as a binary
> dependency. For 0.1.0, I'm fine with the tests not actually
> compiling/working, but replacing this will need to be a top priority for the
> next release.
>
> A.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Will do.
>>
>> A.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom White <tom.e.white@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is probably best raised on legal-discuss
>>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal).
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > So one of the iTest files (
>>> >
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/bigtop/trunk/test/src/itest-common/src/main/groovy/com/cloudera/itest/junit/OrderedParameterized.java
>>> )
>>> > is a derivate of a JUnit class, and so is dual-licensed with the CPL.
>>> But
>>> > the CPL is a Category B license on
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html -
>>> > which suggests that we at the very least don't want to include it, and
>>> if
>>> > possible, we should not use it. So does this mean we need to rewrite the
>>> > class or get rid of it entirely? Anyone have thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > A.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message