Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Just double checking you're only putting up the source releases.

There are a few policy issues around putting up the executables on the incubating site, i.e. before the incubating votes has passed and possible releasing unvoted on artefacts.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

> On Feb 27, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Sorry- miscommunication here.  We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf documentation, that is a no-no.
> 
> You can they just have to be clearly marked as such. Apache likes 3rd parties to use their code and having the documentation pointing to something useful for users is great. The PMC just has to be a little careful not to be seen as not endorsing any particular 3rd party but that’s not an issue here.
> 

+1

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[aditi hilbert <ad...@runtime.io>]

Hi,

I have removed the reference to the binaries from docs for now. i will wait until the IPMC votes have passed before doing anything more about this.

I will do the steps Justin mentioned in the meantime:
* Rename files with something other than “Apache”
* Work on adding all the licenses including Apache license in the binary release
* Work on the language to use in the docs. It will talk about the source files first and then point to the binaries hosted on the 3rd party site. I won’t commit anything before the release is approved.

Thank you, Justin and Sterling, for the explanations.

aditi

> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Sorry- miscommunication here.  We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf documentation, that is a no-no.
> 
> You can they just have to be clearly marked as such. Apache likes 3rd parties to use their code and having the documentation pointing to something useful for users is great. The PMC just has to be a little careful not to be seen as not endorsing any particular 3rd party but that’s not an issue here.
> 
>> I believe runtime has full right to provide these binaries on github
> 
> Yep they can.The Apache license is nice and permissive that way but it does ask for a few things in return.
> 
> For example, and sorry if this is a bit of a repeat of my last email:
> - It’s not using an office release. Users are not  supposed to be exposed to anything that’s not been released. It could put the ASF at risk. Just wait a couple of days until the vote is over.
> - The filename uses “apache” you’ll probabbly need to get permission from trademarks to do that. I doubt they give it and it’s far easier to rename. As a bonus there's less confusion that way as anyone can see that binary is not an Apache release.
> - Your using something the ASF produced. Great we love that but can you include a LICENSE file that tells the user which bits are Apache licensed.
> 
>> LGPL license in dependency has an exception for static linking, in order to allow for just this case.  It's incompatible for ASF - but we're not violating anyone's license.  
> 
> Well as I see it (and INAL etc ) currently you are not abiding by several license terms. In most licenses ask for a copy of their license to be distributed with a binary. The zip is missing an Apache license / notice file, GPL license notice and probably several other BSD, MIT licenses.  Runtime can do what they want here, and I certainly have no say in that, but it would be nice to see an Apache license in that zip.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Sorry- miscommunication here.  We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf documentation, that is a no-no.

You can they just have to be clearly marked as such. Apache likes 3rd parties to use their code and having the documentation pointing to something useful for users is great. The PMC just has to be a little careful not to be seen as not endorsing any particular 3rd party but that’s not an issue here.

> I believe runtime has full right to provide these binaries on github

Yep they can.The Apache license is nice and permissive that way but it does ask for a few things in return.

For example, and sorry if this is a bit of a repeat of my last email:
- It’s not using an office release. Users are not  supposed to be exposed to anything that’s not been released. It could put the ASF at risk. Just wait a couple of days until the vote is over.
- The filename uses “apache” you’ll probabbly need to get permission from trademarks to do that. I doubt they give it and it’s far easier to rename. As a bonus there's less confusion that way as anyone can see that binary is not an Apache release.
- Your using something the ASF produced. Great we love that but can you include a LICENSE file that tells the user which bits are Apache licensed.

> LGPL license in dependency has an exception for static linking, in order to allow for just this case.  It's incompatible for ASF - but we're not violating anyone's license.  

Well as I see it (and INAL etc ) currently you are not abiding by several license terms. In most licenses ask for a copy of their license to be distributed with a binary. The zip is missing an Apache license / notice file, GPL license notice and probably several other BSD, MIT licenses.  Runtime can do what they want here, and I certainly have no say in that, but it would be nice to see an Apache license in that zip.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[Sterling Hughes <st...@gmail.com>]

Sorry- miscommunication here.  We cannot point to runtime binaries in asf documentation, that is a no-no.

I believe runtime has full right to provide these binaries on github: LGPL license in dependency has an exception for static linking, in order to allow for just this case.  It's incompatible for ASF - but we're not violating anyone's license.  

If it's an issue tho- we're replacing this code soon, so we're fine not hosting it as well.  But I think the only thing necessary is to remove references to these binaries from the ASF site. 

Sterling 

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Hope that is fine?
> 
> Sorry not really. [1]
> 
> Think of it this way Runtime is taking an Apache release and compiling it and making that available as their own software. When the release is approved that’s fine as the Apache license allows that. However you need to abide by the terms of the Apache licence the code is under and respect Apache trademarks.
> 
> I think it would be OK if you do the following and sorry it’s a long list. I can hunt down links for you or explain in more detail if you need.
> - Wait until the IPMC votes has passed.
> - Provide links to the official Apache source release first.
> - Change the name of the files so that they could not be confused with an Apache release. i.e. call then Runtime not Apache
> - Likely some changes will need to be made to make clear that this is a convince binary release by Runtime not Apache inside that zip i.e. changes to LICENSE, NOTICE etc
> - Provide links to the runtime compiled versions but make it 100% clear on that page that these files are not Apache releases and not hosted on Apache infrastructure.
> - You may not be able to license that bundle under an Apache license as it probably contains GPL software?
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Hope that is fine?

Sorry not really. [1]

Think of it this way Runtime is taking an Apache release and compiling it and making that available as their own software. When the release is approved that’s fine as the Apache license allows that. However you need to abide by the terms of the Apache licence the code is under and respect Apache trademarks.

I think it would be OK if you do the following and sorry it’s a long list. I can hunt down links for you or explain in more detail if you need.
- Wait until the IPMC votes has passed.
- Provide links to the official Apache source release first.
- Change the name of the files so that they could not be confused with an Apache release. i.e. call then Runtime not Apache
- Likely some changes will need to be made to make clear that this is a convince binary release by Runtime not Apache inside that zip i.e. changes to LICENSE, NOTICE etc
- Provide links to the runtime compiled versions but make it 100% clear on that page that these files are not Apache releases and not hosted on Apache infrastructure.
- You may not be able to license that bundle under an Apache license as it probably contains GPL software?

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what

Re: incubator-mynewt-site git commit: information to download newt tool executable added

[aditi hilbert <ad...@runtime.io>]

Hi Justin,

The executable is put up on runtime github site. Only source releases are on the apache repo. 
The user has the choice of downloading the executable or following tutorials to set up the environment and installing newt from source. 

Hope that is fine?

thanks,
aditi

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 9:25 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just double checking you're only putting up the source releases.
> 
> There are a few policy issues around putting up the executables on the incubating site, i.e. before the incubating votes has passed and possible releasing unvoted on artefacts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin