From general-return-70430-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Aug 12 00:56:34 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC51C19866 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8730 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2019 00:56:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8429 invoked by uid 500); 12 Aug 2019 00:56:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 8417 invoked by uid 99); 12 Aug 2019 00:56:31 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E68A018105C for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.801 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4UF3xXXFnkd for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.208.172; helo=mail-lj1-f172.google.com; envelope-from=gstein@gmail.com; receiver= Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 5B995BC7B3 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 00:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id r9so96833173ljg.5 for ; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rdKlEn/WH/F13eSziT089n8pXrw2aJrRdaUyGXyRlkk=; b=tvKRfqF1jezQ56yXZWZ6cKAI+lwvBNIxJkGEyUY3BHSLbCcf/i4X9ic0YRQrP+HLaX lbx/FwN687OvgdfYsZ9YQZxratsDALWZxL9SMHSM4UYMO0RC0jI5TQjLg0d6SOugRtFo BbWg8bPcuNJaxH1mKcJCl5QuyDP6vocDBz1ZtaYKe1Llu+ugth734KtEEd+gDg+4bEdM ykCWNNFtILYJ1/fNmaakadPh1onZnCI8i+2lABVytqSm+HrOy3zd+JR715qGfpt+yz/Q hrt0+AZJSwfv9K55TkV5GOAwWQ3LUjudnhLbOZGFRoImQ2gZKJBPdgusBS1CHmEoCWNT cDxA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rdKlEn/WH/F13eSziT089n8pXrw2aJrRdaUyGXyRlkk=; b=S7NCMvwAWBu2QHfcXnGn9GQ3hwy6z4f0AnfyIEm0ZqizetSeBf2KuJTVbrc8VaNSzl UWWRMdpUvDPqTtPZ29nP+9itnz17Or8S6zUN71Yoznv6s9oHUAHagKBm5p24pkLSdQYW hPlY1DCPqmImPmsfJFOanCjhfPcJFOkv1B0ZTgryNjV9hZMiG6ROO1nLQrGd87ILR55O eGdoWPLcjtXK7dV8yJMZJmJWA4o/IhgvQoJWkTP+GFtAFCioG0B0/GbX84eYtSloXVtU Lg0QUMvIigcoyzHxzZeAY3CDVOlnxonZ+l5YVyPgH0YQCuFmRv7Nstp5AKex5XfvCKYX IM8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXHbW+SUQyyjw1zsLxNFUb3oCTlFXCsvzwrbOjfb62vvhsc9fvg 49N1YnHi25qWoGRrm1yV90B+ckYbXremfhfBo/6n5yg/JJE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxS+Mvq5NtnGit3W5Fm8UURlgNQStfpoWeeozyX2G/v0bYgIIiNlllFuw1owhZpoJ04noRLvEdVMbIGbiO7APw= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5dc6:: with SMTP id v67mr17632451lje.240.1565571378850; Sun, 11 Aug 2019 17:56:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3C4D6C3E-F6CE-4B10-A7C0-5FB14DAA490F@classsoftware.com> <968755CF-B4AD-4F17-819A-D5513D74AD46@classsoftware.com> <8FA12C68-A1BC-439E-84D7-CD9C2E7FD9FB@classsoftware.com> In-Reply-To: From: Greg Stein Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 19:56:13 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases) To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e832d7058fe0fd38" --000000000000e832d7058fe0fd38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=99t have = to follow > ASF policy. Right. > If they are not official releases then we probably can=E2=80=99t 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 wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 6:32 AM Justin Mclean > 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=E2=80=99t labelled properly. There=E2=80=99s a reasonable = risk that some of >> what would be placed there and distributed isn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99m 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 > > --000000000000e832d7058fe0fd38--