www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Request for clarification of Release Policy regarding external jar files
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:24:20 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharan Foga [mailto:sharan@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 03:09
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for clarification of Release Policy regarding
> external jar files
> 
> Hi Alex
> 
> To respond to your query, it's the PMC that's looking at doing it - no-
> one else, and it if we did do it, it would be as a you say, a direct
> follow on of the source release process.
> 
> Thanks
> Sharan
> 
> On 2016-06-14 16:57 (+0200), Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> > Hi Sharan,
> >
> > Maybe I'm misinterpreting your last sentence, but while I guess it is
> true that the convenience binary doesn't have to go through the same
> process in that the VOTE doesn't have to occur, but because of
> statements in the release policy like: "In all such cases, the
> binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as the source
> release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the result of
> compiling that version of the source code release", it means to me that
> the convenience binary is a follow-on action (by individuals) from a
> source release.  So, whatever sources an individual uses to generate the
> binary release must have first been approved as a source release via the
> usual process.  I don't know that a PMC can enforce those rules on a
> third-party or the RM, but I think the PMC is supposed to try to make
> sure that approved source releases are available for binary release
> providers.
> >
> > IOW, a vote and vetting of a source package had to occur at some point
> before the binary release is produced from it, and in the vetting of the
> source package, checking of LICENSE and NOTICE for the binary release
> generally occur since they can be different from the source release.
[orcmid] 

FWIW and FYI, the Apache OpenOffice project does concurrent voting on a release candidate
and the official (project-approved and -provided branded) binaries that will be distributed
for that release, all prepared from the candidate.  In addition to the source release, there
is an AOO Toolkit (for those who build extensions or operate the runtime as some sort of service),
the different localized and platform versions of installers, and also the different language
packs that users can add for language-based customization of installed distributions.  
   The focus on providing end-user desktop software is the key factor here.  
   The review process can uncover defects/regressions in the binaries that cause the release
candidate to be withdrawn and a new one prepared.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message