www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Boudnik <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-323) Clarify if binary artifacts are part of a release
Date Wed, 02 Aug 2017 15:55:14 GMT
Well, Bigtop *is* both kinds. We are releasing the source code of the
framework, tests, etc. so _anyone_ can build their own distributions.
The packages for a number of ASF  (and a few aren't belonging to
Apache) projects are made available as a courtesy; it might be quite
difficult for average users to produce these artifacts themselves.
They aren't a part of any official release. And the PMC is only voting
on the source code part of the project, of course.
--
  With regards,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Christopher Tubbs (JIRA)
<jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-323?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16110377#comment-16110377
]
>
> Christopher Tubbs commented on LEGAL-323:
> -----------------------------------------
>
> [~chrismattmann] Well, Bigtop *is* a downstream distribution, rather than a typical upstream
project, but yes, I see your point, exceptional cases would make such a policy untenable.
Still, I can wish ;)
>
>> Clarify if binary artifacts are part of a release
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: LEGAL-323
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-323
>>             Project: Legal Discuss
>>          Issue Type: Question
>>            Reporter: Andrew Wang
>>            Assignee: Chris A. Mattmann
>>
>> Hi,
>> Reading the release policy and particularly http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages
I'm still confused as to whether binary artifacts are considered part of a release.
>> {quote}
>> The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All releases are in
the form of the source materials needed to make changes to the software being released.
>> As a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate tools to build a compiled
version of the source, binary/bytecode packages MAY be distributed alongside official Apache
releases.
>> {quote}
>> This seems to imply that only the source is the official release. Binary artifacts
are not part of the release, and are just distributed on the side.
>> Reading the rest of this page though, it's pretty clear that binary artifacts still
need to adhere to the requirements for release artifacts, e.g. licensing and distribution
location.
>> What does this mean in practical terms? If we build a tarball with jars and native
libraries in it, is it part of our official release? What about jars uploaded to Maven Central?
When the PMC votes on a release, are we voting on just the source tarball, or also these additional
binary artifacts?
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
> (v6.4.14#64029)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message