www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A grace period for getting rid of JSON license jars
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:00:51 GMT
You did not answer the question of whether you're willing to go to dec 31 or not. As you're
the only one disagreeing with the later date, if you agree to an earlier date I'd call that
consensus. 

Can we please agree to a temporary date immediately so projects can release while we keep
arguing?  If you don't like my temporary date please suggest another. 

Alan. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2016, at 10:03, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Alan Gates <alanfgates@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ted, there's much more to do here than switch out a pom. Every project will have
to go through a full test cycle as there are likely to be subtle differences between the libraries.
And projects on top of the stack will have to wait for those on the bottom.
> 
> I am very aware of that. I want to get those tests started as soon as possible.
> 
> Moreover, I will be working to get our own QA teams to test existing versions with the
new library as soon as possible. That will be very difficult to schedule, but is really important.
> 
> Also, based on some of my first glances, some cases will require waiting for the lower
projects, but clearly not all. One example of a problematic dependency is twitter4j where
there is source adoption. Other dependencies are cleaner. I am working through a pull request
for twitter4j, partly as self education on this matter.
>  
>> We've had this license for years. Is 6 more months going to matter?
> 
> We are already seeing users reject Apache software because of this issue. So yes, it
will matter. The question is how much and how do we trade that off against the pain involved.
>  
>> 
>> In the interest of letting nifi and hive release will you at least agree to dec 31
as the date and that we get to keep arguing whether to extend that to June 1?
> 
> I think that you over-estimate my influence here. This is a decision we will all be making,
hopefully by as strong a consensus as possible.
> 
> I am happy to agree that simply finding the projects that need changes and communicating
with those projects is likely to mean that only some projects will be able to change sooner
than that. But that is simply my best guess based on incomplete knowledge of which projects
are involved.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message