I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and believe it is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and explained.
People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT allow any relaxation of the ASF release policy for a TLP", and then conclude that Incubator can do ~whatever it wants. This logic does not pass the consistency test. So... if you want that [new] people in the future don't trip on this, it is *necessary* to break this logic somehow. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:31 PM Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 9:59 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > >... > > > > It appears there is general consensus that "right to distribute > closed > > source" would be the main and potentially only blocker for podlings. > > > > That is not the case (re this is a blocker) I suggest you read that legal > > thread again. Also infra makes distribution policy. > > > > *distribution* > > Infra does not care about the contents. If a PMC says "we +1 the contents", > then Infra will not second-guess that. Leave out LICENSE, NOTICE, or do > those files wrong. Include jars, Cat X source. Whatever. We aren't going to > police that. Binaries in there? Knock yourself out. Legal might get on your > case, but that's Not Our Problem(tm). > > If the IPMC says "here is a podling tarball that we will allow", then it > can be put into distribution. Use whatever rules you want for the contents, > or lack of rules. Infra just wants it placed into our distribution system > in a specific way, to ensure correctness, auditing, and resilience. > > VP Infra has already stated the above. As an Officer of Infrastructure, I > concur and reiterate that position. > > Regards, > Greg Stein > InfraAdmin, ASF >
