incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Superset 0.32.0 based on Superset 0.32.0 RC2
Date Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:14:38 GMT
Additionally 

[3] Is CC-BY 4.0 as mentioned
[4] is in licenses/ and states the correct license. 
[5] [6] ([6] is equal to [9]) are from the same author and the correct license (BSD-3) is
included in licenses/ (see also: http://bl.ocks.org/syntagmatic/3150059 - scroll down please).

All above licenses are mentioned in LICENSE.txt

Other items I leave up to the release manager to answer.

Bolke.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad

> Op 26 apr. 2019 om 10:03 heeft Bolke de Bruin <bdbruin@gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
> 
> Hi Justin,
> 
> The GIS data is under CC BY 4.0 see here:
> 
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=supplementary&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0151586.s002
> 
> Hence the reference to this license. According to https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html
it is fine to include this in binary form (whether it can be as part of a source release I
leave that up to you, it’s a bit of a grey area to me in this case).
> 
> Cheers
> Bolke
> 
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
> 
>> Op 26 apr. 2019 om 06:20 heeft Sheng Wu <wu.sheng.841108@gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
>> 
>> Hi Justin
>> 
>> I mean these two are very important and should be fixed. Sorry for not
>> clear enough.
>> 
>> Sheng Wu 吴晟
>> 
>> Apache SkyWalking, ShardingSphere, Zipkin
>> Twitter, wusheng1108
>> 
>> 
>> Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> 于2019年4月26日周五 下午12:16写道:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> It a little unclear to me if your are commenting on the release check list
>>> or the Superset release here.
>>> 
>>>> 1. Missing licensing  information
>>> 
>>> Well IMO it depends on the serenity IMO missing  one or two MIT or BSD
>>> licenses in a podling release is generally a fix next release type of issue
>>> as they are permissive licenses and often the license is included (as a
>>> header) just not clearly indicated that’s it’s included, so it’s more an
>>> ASF policy issue than an actual licensing issue.
>>> 
>>>> 2. Source release may contained compiled code
>>> 
>>> I’m still not sure it can.  In the past I’ve alway voted -1 on this issue,
>>> but it's recently been suggested, that we go easier on podlings releases
>>> particularly their first one. It is still however unknown if the board (who
>>> are responsible for release policy) or infra (who are responsible for
>>> distribution policy) would actually allow this. So far that exact situation
>>> has not come and I not been able to get a clear answer from others on this.
>>> The incubator (and its PMC) don’t set those policies. [1][2]
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>> 
>>> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html
>>> 2. https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message