Chris, Thanks for your feedback.
While ES > 7.10 poses a problem, the ELK stack is not a 100% *mandatory* part of Apache Flagon. Rather, our aim has been to provide the ELK stack scripts as examples for how to stand up one possible back-end for UserALE logs. Per Category X: You may rely on them when they support an optional feature <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional>, is it possible to retain the > 7.10 ELK stack examples so long as we clarify the *optional* nature and also provide examples of other alternative back-ends? Also, re: Jason's question -- Supposing the plugin does pose issues, would it be possible to release it separately from Apache Flagon itself? Best Evan Jones Website: www.ea-jones.com On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:03 PM Jason Young <j...@apache.org> wrote: > My bad for having a weird email setup and not signing emails. > > As far as the elastic license change, we've had discussions about creating > an elastic search plugin similar to these > https://docs.elastic.co/integrations/apache-intro. Would that be > problematic given the license change? > > Jason > > On 2024/01/14 11:38:21 Christofer Dutz wrote: > > And to add to that: The part of the ELK-stack modernization got me > digging a bit. > > At first I thought, seeing version 6.2.2 in the repo made me think: All > ok, but it seems that there are currently efforts underway to update to > 8.11.1 ( > https://github.com/apache/flagon/commit/1fb7c561f342d7f8ae080cd64f2381e8f4e45b6a) > Since version 7.11. the Elastic stuff is released under the new SSPL > license, wich is officially rated category X ( > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html) so it is not allowed to > release Apache software that relies on anything above 7.10. > > > > Chris > > > > On 2024/01/14 11:21:01 Christofer Dutz wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I was just going through the projects latest activity and while having > a look at one of the last VOTE threads, I would like to mention that the > summary of the ASF rules on voting on releases was not quite correct: > > > > > > It's actually: > > > "At least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and > there must be more positive than negative votes" > > > > > > So technically also 2 binding +1 votes and one binding -1 vote would > also be enough for a release, even if usually this would of course not be > encouraged. > > > > > > I also initially I had a bit of a problem actually seeing who the > release manager was as the email didn't contain a name and the name I see > in ponymail is just "proton_mail_bridge". It's always nice to add your name > to an email ... I was glad to see that in your vote, you did add your name > ;-) > > > > > >
