www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Change to release-downloads requirements
Date Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:51:26 GMT

So I think I see the issue.  Specifically if I look at [1] there are other
items deemed as OK to distribute.  So to me, the dev policy should be
updated to reflect this list as what is considered valid to be
distributed.  I will say its a bit confusing that 2 of the 3 links in
question are within comdev (the /dev URI as I've understood it) and one is
under legal.

I wouldn't mind updating the content of that section of the page to say go
here for a full list, but I believe revamping that page should be a comdev


[1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#public-distribution

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:44 AM Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>

> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:55 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > A recent discussion on comdev occurred around the linking of releases
> from
> > download pages.  This was being a bit of an issue in the incubator -
> > podlings would link to sites such as github for download links.  This had
> > the additional issue of showing unapproved releases.
> >
> > To review the changes, please see this thread:
> For convenience, here's John's changeset along with a link to the current
> page:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/infrastructure/site/trunk/content/dev/release-download-pages.mdtext?r1=1771297&r2=1774548
>   http://www.apache.org/dev/release-download-pages
> > - basically it clarified that you can only link to approved releases, and
> > that the pre-release bullet was for alpha/beta/preview releases.
> I applaud the work done to help podlings understand how to emphasize
> official releases approved by the community.  Nevertheless, I have
> some issues with the language of that change -- for starters, it *is*
> currently permissible for projects to link to third-party packages
> which are not approved by the PMC acting on behalf of the foundation.
> This includes "convenience binaries", but may also include other
> builds or supplemental packages[1]. (Whether this policy is optimal is
> a separate question.)
> But really, I have lots of issues with the release-download-pages page
> itself.
> The release-downloads-pages page has been around for a long time.
> There are now two relevant canonical policy pages which supersede it
> on policy questions:
> *   http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy
> *   http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
> The content of release-downloads-pages should be edited down with two
> goals in mind:
> 1.  Provide a technical how-to for setting up a release downloads page.
> 2.  Reference the canonical policy pages instead of competing with them.
> The canonical policy pages have served us well when we need to settle
> pitched arguments. However, we still have the problem that there is
> too much information out there which is hard to sort through and
> digest.
> Pruning surplus release documentation is a task that I have planned to
> take on for a while.  Now seems like an opportune time.
> Marvin Humphrey
> [1] See for example http://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#3rdparty
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message