To finish this thread, I captured all of these licensing issues on the MADlib wiki at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/ASF+Licensing+Guidance should anyone need to refer to it.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Thanks Rahul. I see your commit has addressed the remaining issues: > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator- > madlib.git;a=commit;h=a3863b6c > > We are declaring create_indicators.* as new files so they will have > Apache header. > > For the record, I attached an Excel spreadsheet with some more notes so > that we remember how we went from the two lists Rahul posted above to the > above commit. > > Frank > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Rahul Iyer <rahulri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have attached two files: >> >> new_files_after_apache.txt: New files added since September 15, 2015 >> (grant date) till date >> files_w_apache_header.txt: Files that contain the Apache header right >> now. >> >> Comparing the two lists, there are open questions regarding below files. >> >> Extra headers: >> - sort-module.py has Apache header but was created before grant (recently >> edited and header added). *I'll fix this*. >> - create_indicators.* have headers but were renamed from >> data_preparation.*. *What is the legal guidance with this*? >> >> No header: >> - class_diagram.mp looks like a text file with no header, even though it >> was added just after the grant. I'm not aware of the purpose of this file. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> > >> >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
