On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote:
>> I think we all agree on what's going on and I believe (although correct >> me if I'm putting words in your mouth John) that we all feel the current >> situation with MADlib is NOT against any policy of ASF. >> > Not 100%. We are saying that code modifications should have been under > apache license, but they were still under BSD as of the release from last > year. What makes you say that? What do you mean by "they were still under BSD"? Please point us at a commit. The podling has received a recommendation from VP Legal. If you believe that recommendation was in error, please raise your objection explicitly on legal-discuss. If you can't persuade Legal to rescind the recommendation, then the remaining question is whether the podling is implementing that recommendation successfully. I have not yet seen a coherent explanation of how the podling is failing in this regard. I'm troubled by how difficult we are making things for MADlib. They consulted Legal and got a recommendation. As far as I know, they're following the recommendation. What more can we ask of them? Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
