OK, so we need to go back and do the comparison from the original code grant in the fall of 2015 to the current 1.10 release candidate.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > Frank, I'm not sure I understand the question. The criteria needs to hold > for anything that came in via the initial code ingest compared to how the > master of your project looks now. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > Roman, > > > > Does this apply retro-actively back to initial grant of the code to > ASF? Or > > just from the last release 1.9.1? > > > > Frank > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Here's the ultimate resolution on the IP issue: > >> * we don't do anything with existing (BSD) files even if we edit them > >> * every new file we create gets an ASF license header > >> > >> More details: > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-293? > focusedCommentId=15881595&page=com.atlassian.jira. > plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15881595 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Roman. > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io > > > >> wrote: > >> > Thanks Roman for working on this. > >> > > >> > If you feel a final answer will be ready next week, then yes by all > >> > means l > >> > would suggest to the community that we wait and re-spin an RC2 with > the > >> > license headers issue resolved. Seems less overhead and effort than a > >> > quick follow on release right after 1.10. Also, there some momentum > >> > going > >> > with the legal discussion, so let's take advantage of that. > >> > > >> > Satoshi (release manager), are you OK pausing the RC2 until we hear > back > >> > from Roman next week? > >> > > >> > Thank you, > >> > Frank > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik < > ro...@shaposhnik.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Frank McQuillan > >> >> <fmcquil...@pivotal.io> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Agree with Rahul re putting up an RC2 with the suggested changes > from > >> >> Roman, > >> >> > including incorporating Ed's comments on copyright year and top > level > >> >> folder > >> >> > naming. These are really items but let's respond to the RC1 > >> >> > reviewers > >> >> the > >> >> > best way we can. > >> >> > >> >> +1 to a respin. > >> >> > >> >> > Regarding the ASF legal issue being discussed, MADLib community is > >> >> > more > >> >> than > >> >> > happy to respond to any guidance from the fine folks at the ASF > >> >> > around > >> >> > headers with appropriate licensing verbage. We just need to know > >> >> > what > >> >> that > >> >> > guidance is. > >> >> > >> >> Well, if you're ok respinning next week I hope to get you a final > >> >> answer by then. > >> >> Might as well kill two birds with the same RC. Or we can quickly do a > >> >> follow up > >> >> release once the licensing headers dust settles. Up to you guys. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Roman. > >> >> > > > > >
