Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 11:53:52 -0700
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: bigtop-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] BOM and supported platforms for Bigtop 0.4.0
Message-ID: <20120505185352.GB18224@tpx>
References: <4F9F4F6C.4000404@apache.org>
 <B5C77294-CBA6-4B46-940E-707BD450A278@hortonworks.com>
 <CA+ULb+uyYMUha0_fVqx8g0tj=o-g3X7iq_zDQ9yWP_OtKej3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHfHakGwML2+8gOnhKm8RVDoG_QdEdvVU4tiCESBOJC-6eeq3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FA2D5F3.5060701@apache.org>
 <CAHfHakHerE2W+eAKO=xAGWEPwG99iviKKHe=Ny=AeunP7qi36g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FA31511.7050207@cloudera.com>
 <CANLc_9K19rgV2b=X9fwjg0d1bDfTk4_oXASqwDh1sdhGs5R-Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHfHakGSMceqA8o253N8+FeYP+oWuU-F3=FrDsWMQPZkkAebTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANLc_9L8Ro9cY8W6vqjPGmfi5jYnUvvFyTzPx0mSq0wAmY7G7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANLc_9L8Ro9cY8W6vqjPGmfi5jYnUvvFyTzPx0mSq0wAmY7G7Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:02AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> >> It's not the job of the incubator to create new rules, but rather to
> >> help podlings to graduation while following existing Apache
> >> guidelines.
> >
> > We aren't making new rules. We are trying to help the Bigtop project
> > understand the rules about not releasing non-Apache software. There is
> > a huge difference between depending on an artifact from another
> > project and building and distributing non-Apache rpms in the project's
> > /dist directory.
>=20
> They are not releasing non-Apache software. They are not forking an
> existing project. Bigtop's release artifact will contain packaging
> code which allows users to compile packages (deb, rpm, etc...) for
> this ASL licensed component, not the source/binaries of the component
> itself.

Thank you Patrick to bringing this back again! It seems that this point kee=
ps
dropping on the floor all the time. BigTop releases are merely a source code
for tools to produce and validate the integrity of software stacks. Let's k=
eep
in mind at the next round of deliberations.

Packages are secondary and can be stored someplace else, because really any=
one
can produce them with ease using BigTop. If someone dislike component-A for
one reason or another - it is easy to remote it from a particular release's
BOM file.=20

Cos

> >> It's very clear from
> >> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html that what has been proposed
> >> is acceptable under existing Apache rules.
> >
> > Can you find a single instance other than the disagreement between
> > Apache Lucene and Apache Commons where one project is distributing
> > another project's rpms? Are there any other non-Apache rpms in /dist?
> > Clearly the answer is a resounding NO. It would be a huge violation of
> > the trust the incubator is putting in me as a mentor if I didn't block
> > Bigtop's plan to do so.
>=20
> If the component made an objection to being included in Bigtop then I
> could see an argument to be made, that's not the case here. The
> opposite is true from what I've seen -- people want their software to
> be included so that users can more easily consume it. That's why they
> released their software under a less restrictive license in the first
> place.
>=20
> EOD existing Apache rules/license make no such distinction. "Works
> under the following licenses may be included within Apache products"
> (includes ASL).
>=20
> Patrick

--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+ld0AACgkQenyFlstYjhJy8wD/X7sePG618FQqMLpCG0dj0Ntt
TBjoA1f3Go+02QqiHIAA/j7Qr9e3XvVHWoSUSodQQN2vvq9yQWl7zVH67KBO0n6n
=u7Um
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs--