incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Distribution guidelines for other platforms
Date Mon, 06 Jul 2020 17:31:56 GMT
Hi -

Big observation. I’m uncomfortable with the Incubator making Apache Policy beyond adding
DISCLAIMERs. Other Board and Operations VPs have been delegated policy making. Yes, that is
hard and unclear. Perhaps this proposal could inform those discussions.

More inline.

> On Jul 5, 2020, at 7:30 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:
> Hi,
>> Does the convenience binaries include nightlys? Or CI test builds?
> In general they do not not, as wording states “approved releases” i.e. that means
that the IPMC must vote on the release artefact. Also note that only approved code can be
in a convenance binary, which again means it only includes code voted on by the IPMC in a

For clarity, you mean that the dependencies included in a binary fit valid classes of licenses
with correct notices.

> However, it would be expected that these other types of builds follow these guidelines,
but as there are not based on an offical releases there might be some differences. The main
issue with these sort of releases would be distribution to end users, which is not allowed,
so it needs to be made very clear that this is for development and testing use only and that
end users are not using these in production or elsewhere. A large number of downloads from
these platforms would suggest that the platform is being used by end users and steps may need
to be taken to prohibit that.
>> If yes, what's the recommendation if a project needs to test category X optional
> This is not covered and it would be good to have a seperate discussion about this. IMO
It probably should be discussed on a case by case basis. In general these could not be called
Apache releases or distributed on ASF platforms, and would be treated as 3rd party releases
with different branding and trademark requirements. Currently permission from legal and/or
infra and/or the IPMC is likely to be needed to do this.

I think there is current discuss in legal about this. Please check the legal-discuss@ archive.

>>> Where possible it should be pointed out that Apache project make source releases
and convenience binaries are just a convenience for end user.
>> What's the reason for requiring this statement? Can a project choose to vote on a
binary release under ALv2 to make it official?
> Currently with ASF policy, no binary releases are “official” as we make source releases
only. This may change in the near future. However, binary releases are expected to comply
with ASF policy on licensing, branding, trademarks, releases and distribution just like source

Again discussion about this notion should be brought to legal-discuss@

>> What does this mean to the PPMCs? Would it be more helpful if this includes reference
to the branding policies that the PPMCs should adhere to and protect? (e.g. [1][2][3])
> This is already linked to in the Incubator policy / guidelines.

Note that <>
is a draft policy and represents the VP, Brands best understanding of current practices. PPMCs
should consider their project’s downstream and see if that fits this policy. If not then
it should be discussed at trademarks@

>> Would there be cases where the convenience binaries must be licensed under a different
but non-Category-x license due to dependencies? If so, what's the recommendation?
> The dependancies don’t effect the license only what is bundled in the release does
that. If other Category A and Category B items are included in the release then that is fine
as they are compatible with the Apache license when used in this way. So I can't think of
a situation were a distribution would need to be licensed under a different license. If it
was then it wouldn’t be an Apache release as all release need to be under the Apache license.

If there were a huge reason for a category X inclusion then that would require changes in
policy which are highly unlikely. One of the strengths of the ASF is that are licensing is
considered to be safe.


> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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