On Feb 20, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> wrote:
> Real quick, because I don't know if I will be able to track this > thread in detail starting tonight... Take this as input to the > discussion that the whole community needs to have about the > *potential* problem with the current situation. > > Legal documentation as well as application of the "valid license > categories" is tied to the bits in something we distribute. So that > means that we have LICENSE and NOTICE for the source package (with all > code either being valid licenses or developed at the ASF). This same > logic applies to any binary distribution... they have their own legal > documents, and they should pertain to all bits included in that > distribution. > > Unlike other ASF projects, we do NOT offer binary builds from ASF > infra. This is where things are fuzzy, and there needs to be a > discussion. We offer "packages" that are pre-compiled. I always thought that we do not offer packages. Wido does, not the project. We do build them on jenkins, but there are not official releases. > That being > said, we actually offer RPMs that include the nonoss features, while > our community hosted DEBs do not contain those bits. Theoretically > though, the packages should be the place to depend on "system > dependencies". > > The other issue is one of "default build" not having any category X > dependencies. There is a fine line between a "system dependency" and > a dependency that is pulled down during the build. We had previously > agreed that the cat X stuff would require manual work and not be > pulled in automatically. > > Transitive dependencies are also an issue... if we package them, we > should respect their license and actually need to have them in the > legal docs. Not sure where they stand WRT being pulled in by the > build process... > > So... no answers, just a bit of background. > > I'm going to be offline (mostly) until Wed of next week. I will try > to watch this thread and rescind my -1 on the RC if we can work our > way through this logic puzzle in a way that satisfies my concerns > about the current state of things. > > -chip > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org> > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> Chip, David thanks for the detailed explanation, is one of you taking care >>> of fixing this issue or we need to find other volunteers >> >> I'm sorry to say that I do not have the available cycles. $dayjob + >> getting ready for a few days off has me pretty booked up. >> >> -chip
