On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect, > lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
To close the loop, LEGAL-178 has been resolved with a determination that it's up to the Incubator PMC whether to leave the Chukwa binary artifacts in place, since they do not violate either licensing or ASF policy. Policy regarding location of LICENSE/NOTICE applies only to official Apache releases, and convenience binaries are not official releases. With that clarification in hand... In my opinion, violating the social norm regarding placement of LICENSE/NOTICE at the top level of META-INF/ is the kind of licensing documentation bug which we would ordinarily let pass but ask podlings to fix on subsequent releases. I don't think that particular problem rises to the level where the artifacts need to be removed at this late date. Additionally, while there were irregularities surrounding the VOTE threads for Chukwa 0.5.0 -- closer inspection reveals that binaries were presented for some release candidates but not others -- it no longer seems to me as though the situation is far enough outside the norm to require removal. The norm being: whether anybody performs any quality control at all on a given convenenience binary is a crapshoot. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
