incubator-bigtop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License problem
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:07:58 GMT
Huh. I actually can't find any use of the class in question in our test code
- might have been an early attempt at something? Kos/Roman would probably be
able to answer.

A.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I thought the goal of the first release was just to get the legal issues
> > sorted out against the initial codebase, not to necessarily have anything
> > functional? The testing isn't going to be in place right away regardless,
> > since we don't have the infrastructure for testing at Apache Jenkins (or
> > elsewhere in ASF Infra). As I see it, the first release is about cleanup,
> > legal, and the packaging source - itest is secondary for me.
>
> A release is a release, IMO it's no good if it's not basically
> functional. Getting through the legal issues is a big hurdle of the
> first release, but not really _the_ goal.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message