incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Date Tue, 11 Jun 2019 20:20:28 GMT
The "legal shield" has been brought up by others as the reason for being so strict on policy
compliance, hence my questions.

My takeaway from your responses is that the key factors are:
1) legal right to distribute.
2) no downstream limitations on field of use.

which I agree with and see no reason to change it.  However, that implies that other policy
compliance issues (missing source headers, not-quite-right handling of LICENSE and maybe NOTICE)
are not showstoppers and can be addressed in a future release, and that would save time not
only for podlings, but for TLPs as well.

Then the main decision point for this thread is whether to allow podlings more slack on #2
given their artifacts are appropriately labelled and disclaimed.

Could an incentive be offered to podlings that if their release complies with both #1 and
#2 that they can remove the -incubating label when copying the artifacts to dist.a.o?

Thanks,
-Alex

´╗┐On 6/10/19, 11:13 AM, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

    The content of a release and the downstream limitations on field of use are
    not a matter of legal shield. It has always been the case that the
    fundamental promise of Apache has been that Apache software is easy and
    safe to adopt and use.
    
    Easy and safe meaning that you won't have nasty surprises like somebody
    suing you for "being evil" or, worse, having your own lawyers veto a
    critical release because a dependency of a dependency is GPL licensed or is
    restricted from being used in anything that competes with smart plumbing
    accessories.
    
    Getting the foundation to relax that attitude of no downstream restrictions
    is going to be nearly impossible.
    
    On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
    
    > There's been a lot of discussion on relaxing requirements, but I don't
    > recall any long-time ASF person explaining how fragile or durable the
    > legal-shield and the insurance rates for it are.
    >
    > ...
    >
    > Unless someone can explain why that would ruin the legal-shield or raise
    > insurance rates, I think that would save lots of community time getting
    > releases out.  Otherwise, we might be expending precious energy
    > overzealously trying to protect a legal-shield that doesn't need that level
    > of protection.
    >
    > Does anybody truly know what will and will not ruin the legal-shield?  I
    > have to imagine that releases have been shipped by the ASF and later found
    > to be non-compliant with policy and that didn't ruin the legal shield or
    > raise insurance rates.
    >
    

Mime
View raw message