incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.1-incubating (Candidate 3)
Date Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:11:09 GMT
Le 6/24/12 10:46 AM, Chris Douglas a écrit :
> Kevan-

Hi, jumping on this thread, because we have had similar discussions on 
another incubating project I'm mentoring...
> This argument is logical, but that doesn't make it legal and thus
> required. It is also a constraint foreign to most TLPs, making its
> rigid enforcement in the incubator unfair and arbitrary. Not to be
> glib, but you clearly do have time to pursue this broadly and across
> the foundation if, in fact, you're right and many- if not most- ASF
> projects are improperly managing this obligation.
The fact that many projects at the ASF are not releasing correctly is 
not a good reason for not doing it correctly for Kafka. Moreover, I'm 
pretty sure that sooner or later, those projects will have to comply to 
what seems to be a reasonable requirement.
> The references provided do not make the argument you're forwarding, at
> least they do not distinguish it from the criteria we used for
> evaluating Kafka 0.7.0. The claim is that Kafka "distributes" the
> transitive closure of its dependencies NOT because they're mentioned
> in the build source (where you carve out an exemption), but because
> these deps are mentioned AND Kafka's build produces a server. This
> distinction between "applications" and "libraries" is unmentioned in
> the documentation. In fact, I cannot create an argument for
> documenting the transitive closure of dependencies using those
> references. The argument (as forwarded) requires this step to reach
> its conclusion, but it appears to be novel and unsupported. The
> passages you quote are already common ground; we both agree that the
> artifact must contain an "appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE file", but we
> disagree on the scope of "appropriate". I continue to disagree; I
> don't think the case has been made.
> The closest documentation I could find was here:
> Which claims to be a draft of a document that also doesn't give
> concrete guidance on this point.

AFAICT, the important thing is that those who will download Kafka (or 
any other ASF project) can't be fooled when includig it into their own 
projects. The N&L files are here to facilitate our user's work, by 
listing all the external third party components we depend on, and that 
includes transitive dependencies.

It's also a guarantee that we have checked that no depency contains a 
transitive dependency that is *not* compatible with our licence. How 
good will it be to include a dependency that includes a GPL3 licensed 
3rd party itself ?

Having checked all the transitive dependencies ourself is the only way 
to provide a guarantee to your users, and by listing those transitive 
dependencies in the  N&L files is the only way to go.

At least this is my interpretation on the various discussions we have 
had in the ast two months while tryibg to cut a release on Syncope 
(incubator) and SSHD (a MINA subproject).

Hope it helps...

Emmanuel Lécharny

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message