Binary convenience artifacts

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

At a source level, I think binary redistribution concerns of components
packaged by Bigtop don't impact Bigtop releases. Bigtop is largely
meta-source: build files instructing the assembly of assemblies, or Puppet
or similar scripts directing deployment and configuration management. The
Java and Groovy sources for integration tests has proper licensing,
contribution, and do not to my knowledge introduce any dependencies on
forbidden or uncategorized licenses.

On the other hand, when looking at the binary convenience artifacts
produced by a Bigtop build, wherever a component isn't doing the right
thing then there could be concerns. I wasn't around when Bigtop was going
through incubation or in the beginning of its life as a TLP. How was the
question resolved of what Bigtop should/must do if binary redistribution
includes components with licenses that aren't in category A? Perhaps one of
the old-timers could pass along pointers or some wisdom to the (relative)
newcomers. I did attempt mail-search.apache.org but this wasn't immediately
useful.

-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Binary convenience artifacts

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> At a source level, I think binary redistribution concerns of components
> packaged by Bigtop don't impact Bigtop releases. Bigtop is largely
> meta-source: build files instructing the assembly of assemblies, or Puppet
> or similar scripts directing deployment and configuration management. The
> Java and Groovy sources for integration tests has proper licensing,
> contribution, and do not to my knowledge introduce any dependencies on
> forbidden or uncategorized licenses.
>
> On the other hand, when looking at the binary convenience artifacts
> produced by a Bigtop build, wherever a component isn't doing the right
> thing then there could be concerns. I wasn't around when Bigtop was going
> through incubation or in the beginning of its life as a TLP. How was the
> question resolved of what Bigtop should/must do if binary redistribution
> includes components with licenses that aren't in category A? Perhaps one of
> the old-timers could pass along pointers or some wisdom to the (relative)
> newcomers. I did attempt mail-search.apache.org but this wasn't immediately
> useful.

IIRC, it ended up being a gray area. We were asked to remove the binary
artifacts from the ASF managed INFRA and started publishing them on
Cloudera provided S3.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: Binary convenience artifacts

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Thanks Cos.

If I can rephrase a bit: We are not in a position to care about binary
redistribution issues of our upstream projects, because we do not make
releases that include binary artifacts, our official releases are source
only.

I assume earlier debate about pointing to unofficial binary convenience
artifacts stored on non-ASF infrastructure was satisfactorily resolved.
It's not my intention to reignite any debate. I don't have concerns. I'm
looking to bookmark background information on the subject of binaries for
whenever the subject comes up. If anyone has a pointer to such a
discussion, I'd greatly appreciate it. Otherwise I will go spelunking in
the archives.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 06:07PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > At a source level, I think binary redistribution concerns of components
> > packaged by Bigtop don't impact Bigtop releases. Bigtop is largely
> > meta-source: build files instructing the assembly of assemblies, or
> Puppet
> > or similar scripts directing deployment and configuration management. The
> > Java and Groovy sources for integration tests has proper licensing,
> > contribution, and do not to my knowledge introduce any dependencies on
> > forbidden or uncategorized licenses.
> >
> > On the other hand, when looking at the binary convenience artifacts
> > produced by a Bigtop build, wherever a component isn't doing the right
> > thing then there could be concerns. I wasn't around when Bigtop was going
> > through incubation or in the beginning of its life as a TLP. How was the
> > question resolved of what Bigtop should/must do if binary redistribution
> > includes components with licenses that aren't in category A? Perhaps one
> of
> > the old-timers could pass along pointers or some wisdom to the (relative)
> > newcomers. I did attempt mail-search.apache.org but this wasn't
> immediately
> > useful.
>
> I don't remember exactly, but I think we had some contention around the
> binary
> distribution. Which has been pretty much resolved by the fact the we are
> _not_
> releasing binaries. And the convenience packaging isn't even stored on ASF
> infra. I do not see an issue with it, really - at least not a Bigtop's one.
>
> What others thought about this?
>   Cos
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Re: Binary convenience artifacts

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 06:07PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> At a source level, I think binary redistribution concerns of components
> packaged by Bigtop don't impact Bigtop releases. Bigtop is largely
> meta-source: build files instructing the assembly of assemblies, or Puppet
> or similar scripts directing deployment and configuration management. The
> Java and Groovy sources for integration tests has proper licensing,
> contribution, and do not to my knowledge introduce any dependencies on
> forbidden or uncategorized licenses.
> 
> On the other hand, when looking at the binary convenience artifacts
> produced by a Bigtop build, wherever a component isn't doing the right
> thing then there could be concerns. I wasn't around when Bigtop was going
> through incubation or in the beginning of its life as a TLP. How was the
> question resolved of what Bigtop should/must do if binary redistribution
> includes components with licenses that aren't in category A? Perhaps one of
> the old-timers could pass along pointers or some wisdom to the (relative)
> newcomers. I did attempt mail-search.apache.org but this wasn't immediately
> useful.

I don't remember exactly, but I think we had some contention around the binary
distribution. Which has been pretty much resolved by the fact the we are _not_
releasing binaries. And the convenience packaging isn't even stored on ASF
infra. I do not see an issue with it, really - at least not a Bigtop's one.

What others thought about this?
  Cos