incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) Release
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:46:05 GMT
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, " on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
> < on behalf of> wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <>
>>> Hi,
>>>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>>>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could
>>>>look weir enough.
>>> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
>>For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable
>>to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
>>well fit in that
>>category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
>>modifying the headers.
> Did the code owners (original authors of these files) actually sign an SGA
> to donate these files to Apache?

No. I though it was implicit in my original email, but thanks for
calling attention to it.

> If not, these files are technically not
> part of a code donation and should be treated as you would any 3rd party
> code.  AIUI, you can't grant code you don't own, even if it was
> accidentally included in an SGA.

Correct for the pristine, unmodified sources. For source originally
coming from PG
where Pivotal (and companies prior to it) added/modified to it the
line get blurry.

Personally, I feel like those types of files definitely need to be
included in the SGA.
After all, Pivotal did own the modifications on top of the pristine PG
source and it is
important for the company to explicitly signal donation of that code.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message