On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:29 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I wrote: (dunno why Justin keeps trimming sources for his quotes...) > > Option (F): stop calling them official ASF releases, which means PMC > votes > > are not required. > > In that case voting would not be required and they wouldn’t have to follow > ASF policy. Right. > If they are not official releases then we probably can’t release or > distribute them on ASF infrastructure. I see no problem with using our infrastructure to distribute F/OSS materials. Why would the Foundation want to be against that? If it is labeled properly, then ... roll with it. We distribute a *ton* of stuff that wasn't produced by the ASF. We incorporate that stuff into a larger work, but it isn't "ours". Yet we put it onto our servers. Clearly, these bits and bobs and blobs *are* intended to be F/OSS. Maybe somebody thinks a LICENSE file isn't correct, so maybe ACME Inc. can't use it ... but John and Jane and Joe certainly want to, and *can*. Isn't that our goal? We do allow connivance binaries but they still have to follow ASF policy > and have to be made from the source of an official release. In this > scenario how do podlings learn what is required to make official releases? > You're conflating *learning* with *releases*. These can be handled separately. Cheers, -g not-Infra
