www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 04:55:43 GMT
Brian, we only specifically talked about whether we should be allowed to give_intermediate_
build artifacts like nightly builds, etc to interested people. I personally find it a bit
too restrictive to not allow to publish those for user testing. We (the foundation) already
do this via our snapshots maven repos...

And there are also different layers of 'legal'. There is no law in the US nor otherwhere in
the world who requires a VOTE before an opensource release. JBoss doesn't do it, Eclipse doesn't
do it, etc. 

BUT: it is an ASF policy and thus binding for all our projects to VOTE on releases. 
And it is a really good one as it increases the technical and legal quality of our products!
It's really a good thing to have 10+ people looking at a release and e.g. discovering that
a file has the wrong license and should get removed again for example. And of course it helps
reducing the risk from getting sued because we obviously try to minimize human errors. 

@Shane I'm not sure how many ASF members are subscribed to the legal list, maybe it is enough
if we just rise awareness.


On Thursday, 22 May 2014, 23:19, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

>"But the
 point already got covered and answered dozens of times imo. The answer 
is that the ALv2 protects the foundation and also the release manager 
already for all bona fides cases. End of story."
>Interesting for myself to note that it was communicated very directly to Cordova that
this *was not* the case. Votes are a necessary component for a valid (aka legal) release.
Also interesting for me to discover in this thread that the release policy is not adhered
to by all ASF projects. We were lead to believe the rules are immutable, all projects obey
them. End of story. 
>I am dismayed to discover this is not the case and Cordova was singled out. 
>However, clarity here is a great starting to amending the rules, and I recognize this
effort is not forum for that. My perspective: the vote is a SHOULD and most certainly SHA
verifciation SHOULD be the job of a computer (aka CI system) and not a human and I am very
happy to hear there is precedent for this with other projects. 
View raw message