incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:13 GMT
See further below for an unfortunately trimmed thread. A couple paragraphs
that I wrote early-thread are important to add:

----
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?
----

I see no problems with the purported "risk" mentioned below. Would some
mis-licensing occur? Likely. Is it material to the Foundation's mission?
Nah. What if something appears on our servers without a clear F/OSS
license? Does John or Jane care? Nopes. But we fix it in a future release.
Move along, everybody is happy.

I'd like to see the IPMC get out of the way of the podlings' releases. I
see no reason for us to be a gate, and many more reasons to back off and
let podlings get their work done.

Cheers,
-g

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 7:46 PM Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It often isn’t labelled properly.  There’s a reasonable risk that some of
>> what would be placed there and distributed isn’t actually F/OSS.
>
>
> And what would be the blowback of something on our server with incorrect
> information? Very little. Mostly, we'd just move on. Maybe we delete it.
>
>
>> I can point you to several example of this. I’m not sure how the
>> incubator (or the board) would feel about that risk, so that would be
>> something we would be need to consider further. Also
>
>
> Welp. Then I will pose that question, rather than this endless
> pontificating about "risk".
>
>
>> while Jane and John may be fine with that, a lot of companies that use
>> Apache releases may not be.
>>
>
> I already acknowledged that. Many people could use software regardless of
> its licensing. The license typically only matters in *redistribution*
> scenarios. Things like the AGPL affect *usage*, but that is very, very
> atypical. I'd think 99% of downstream could use our software, even with
> gummed-up licensing.
>
>
>> > You're conflating *learning* with *releases*. These can be handled
>> separately.
>>
>> How exactly?
>
>
> You're saying that releases are the control point to learning. I say just
> let the releases go.
>
> You want to teach? Then you can use the releases like "that wasn't good.
> next time: do A and B". Over time, releases will get fixed. But the IPMC
> should not have to manage the releases.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message