You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Frank McQuillan <fm...@pivotal.io> on 2016/02/25 21:07:19 UTC
[VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Hello Incubator PMC,
The Apache MADlib (incubating) community has voted on and approved the
proposal to release MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1.
The voting result is available at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzSkXyGVQSKrY99zc9UmTE_NfXcYrxDGB%3DCMBmuCKLxbAg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
This is the 1st release for Apache MADlib (incubating).
There are two main goals for this release:
* Clear all potential IP issues in the code base and make it legally ready
to be adopted by the community.
* Share the new features that have been developed so far, in order to give
the community a good sense of the upcoming 1.9 release.
For more information including release notes, please see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/MADlib+1.9+alpha
This is a source code tarball only release.
To run check RAT, please do:
$mvn verify
first to get the correct RAT output. Look inside of pom.xml to see the
classes of exceptions we're managing there for RAT.
We're voting on the source (tag):
rc/v1.9alpha-rc1
Source Files:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/1.9alpha-incubating-rc1/
Commit to be voted on:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-madlib.git;a=commit;h=581d07b03ba6c7f81fd791548f1b0f7c4909c710
KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/KEYS
Please vote:
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
*** The vote will be open until Monday Feb 29 at 6 pm Pacific time. ***
Thank you,
Frank McQuillan
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
With the blocking (vestiges of MPL code) jiras fixed and the blessing
from legal-discuss on how to proceed re: missing BSD licensing headers:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201603.mbox/%3C9D1AF43C-370B-4E58-B0EF-2E29D242F50B%40jaguNET.com%3E
I propose we move ahead with RC2.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Frank McQuillan <fm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.
>
> At this point I would like to cancel the vote on MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1. The
> following JIRAs have been identified based on comments received; they have
> either been fixed or are in the process of being fixed:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-971
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-972
>
> We are waiting to hear from Roman regarding the need to add a header to BSD
> files, and if so, what the header content should be. This is the only
> outstanding item. Once it has been resolved we will be putting up a RC2
> and calling for another vote by the Incubator PMC.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
>> >> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
>> >> a can of worms.
>> > <snip>
>> >> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
>> >> legal-discuss), something to the effect of…
>> >
>> > Could the files in question be considered copyright MADLib project? (the
>> pre/non Apache one that is)
>>
>> They could, but that would be us inventing things retrospectively
>> which, when it comes to legal matters, I'm terrified of.
>>
>> I'll ask this question on legal-discuss to be sure. Stay tuned!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> P.S. Justin, your -1 is still very much justified (and appreciated!) given
>> that
>> we did, indeed, left one MPL source file (we got rid of other MPL source
>> files, but missed this one).
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Frank McQuillan <fm...@pivotal.io>.
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.
At this point I would like to cancel the vote on MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1. The
following JIRAs have been identified based on comments received; they have
either been fixed or are in the process of being fixed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-971
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-972
We are waiting to hear from Roman regarding the need to add a header to BSD
files, and if so, what the header content should be. This is the only
outstanding item. Once it has been resolved we will be putting up a RC2
and calling for another vote by the Incubator PMC.
Regards,
Frank
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
> >> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
> >> a can of worms.
> > <snip>
> >> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
> >> legal-discuss), something to the effect of…
> >
> > Could the files in question be considered copyright MADLib project? (the
> pre/non Apache one that is)
>
> They could, but that would be us inventing things retrospectively
> which, when it comes to legal matters, I'm terrified of.
>
> I'll ask this question on legal-discuss to be sure. Stay tuned!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. Justin, your -1 is still very much justified (and appreciated!) given
> that
> we did, indeed, left one MPL source file (we got rid of other MPL source
> files, but missed this one).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
>> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
>> a can of worms.
> <snip>
>> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
>> legal-discuss), something to the effect of…
>
> Could the files in question be considered copyright MADLib project? (the pre/non Apache one that is)
They could, but that would be us inventing things retrospectively
which, when it comes to legal matters, I'm terrified of.
I'll ask this question on legal-discuss to be sure. Stay tuned!
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Justin, your -1 is still very much justified (and appreciated!) given that
we did, indeed, left one MPL source file (we got rid of other MPL source
files, but missed this one).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
> Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
> a can of worms.
<snip>
> Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
> legal-discuss), something to the effect of…
Could the files in question be considered copyright MADLib project? (the pre/non Apache one that is)
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, .hpp, .py. .cpp files)
>
> That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
> they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the licensing BSD
> headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner).
Good point, Roman -- I don't think there's one right answer there.
Copyright credits in open source works with lots of collaborators are
a can of worms.
I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this particular
issue should block a release. If there were no headers there to begin
with, there's nothing illegal as far as I can tell -- it's just that
information about the licensing isn't being conveyed as well as it
could be to consumers for a fairly large number of files.
> Thus I noted this following in LICENSE:
> ===========================================================
> The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License
> header, should be assumed to be coming from previous life of MADlib as a
> BSD licensed project and is available under the following license:
> ===========================================================
Maybe add a short header to each file (vet wording with
legal-discuss), something to the effect of...
/* This file is available under a BSD-3-clause license -- see LICENSE */
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I don't think I can agree agree. While you're correct in principle,
> in practice we're talking about extra 3 lines in the NOTICE file
Clearly not a major issue - just pointing it out.
> That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
> they have the BSD header.
A condition of the BSD license is to include the full text of the licences including the copyright owner. Usually that’s done in the header but can be elsewhere. See 1. of the 3 Clause BSD license [1]
That may be the case but it ’s not clear looking at each file what it is licensed under or who the copyright owner is. In later releases extra files could easily slip in. If the original files have no headers how did you know that each was BSD licensed? Even if the package a whole was BSD licensed that may not mean that each file is BSD licensed.
For instance that that clause mean the README.md is BSD licensed because it doesn’t have an Apache header? Or what about recent files added with no headers? [3] Or the changes to this file? [4]
> I don't think we can add the licensing BSD headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner).
If you are not the sole owner are all copyright owners listed? I would see no harm in adding a BSD header to a file that was licensed that way. How could someone object to make license and copyright ownership clearer? Removing it however would require permission.
>> - BSD licensed [4]
> Ditto.
>> - BSD licensed [5]
> Ditto.
But have different copyright owners so again that probably still needs to go into LICENSE for clarity.
The requirement is just that the full text and copyright owner be included so if it in the header there’s legally no need to add it to LICENSE but that current policy / advice. [2]
I’m probably said enough and will let other IPMC state their views, but currently I think I’m still a -1 on this release.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
3. https://github.com/apache/incubator-madlib/blob/8fa2f539f394bb38107ece3a0c9a2da714641978/src/ports/postgres/modules/svm/kernel_approximation.py_in
4. https://github.com/apache/incubator-madlib/commit/dfeffb6548e5816c8705131f092a50d304b671d3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Hi Justin,
as usual thanks a million for your thorough review. A couple of points
though.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry -1 (binding) for possible inclusion of MPL licensed source code in the source
> release and uncertainty of licensing of files missing headers.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE is missing a couple of things
> - NOTICE includes unnecessary copyright lines. NOTICE should be minimal [3]
I don't think I can agree agree. While you're correct in principle,
in practice we're talking about extra 3 lines in the NOTICE file
with, I believe, most of them solving an issue of potentially
missing headers that Pivotal don't have the rights to add back (we
are not the copyright holders). See more below.
> - Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, .hpp, .py. .cpp files)
That's on purpose. Those files are BSD licensed regardless of whether
they have the BSD header. I don't think we can add the licensing BSD
headers post factum (like I said Pivotal isn't a sole copyright owner).
Thus I noted this following in LICENSE:
===========================================================
The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License
header, should be assumed to be coming from previous life of MADlib as a
BSD licensed project and is available under the following license:
===========================================================
> LICENSE is missing:
> - BSD license code in [2]
Sure, but see above.
> - BSD licensed [4]
Ditto.
> - BSD licensed [5]
Ditto.
> - MIT licensed [6]
Now this is a great point -- we gotta fix it.
> - There are several areas where file are missing headers,
> it unclear if these are 3rd party files or Apache licensed file. This may effect LICENSE and NOTICE.
See above.
> There may be a more serious issue with this file [7] as
> it seems to be based on [8] and looks to be MPL licensed.
> MPL licensed source code cannot be used in a source release. [9]
Huh. That's a great point. Let me do some digging and get back to you.
> I’m also not 100% what the contents of licenses/third_party/ has to do with the source release.
> There seems to be a couple of extra non bundled items in there and the items are not mentioned
> in LICENSE? Are these for a binary convenience release?
Yup. That's the idea!
> Other very minor things:
> - best to use an apache email address for signing
You're echoing my feedback here! Thanks!
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9alpha-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Sorry -1 (binding) for possible inclusion of MPL licensed source code in the source release and uncertainty of licensing of files missing headers.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is missing a couple of things
- NOTICE includes unnecessary copyright lines. NOTICE should be minimal [3]
- Large a number of files are missing apache headers (i.e. .sh, .in, .c, .h, .hpp, .py. .cpp files)
- No unexpected binaries
- Can compile from source
LICENSE is missing:
- BSD license code in [2]
- BSD licensed [4]
- BSD licensed [5]
- MIT licensed [6]
- There are several areas where file are missing headers, it unclear if these are 3rd party files or Apache licensed file. This may effect LICENSE and NOTICE.
There may be a more serious issue with this file [7] as it seems to be based on [8] and looks to be MPL licensed. MPL licensed source code cannot be used in a source release. [9]
Not sure how this files are licensed [10][11][12] as they are missing headers. There a quite a number of other .c and .h files missing headers in the same directories as well. This could be as simple as missing headers or is it that they are not Apache licensed and 3rd party code? There are serval other places where this is also an issue e.g. [13][14][15][16][17] + others.
if as noted in the pom.xml file this files are previous BSD licensed files from MADlib (and not 3rd party software) and part of the software grant then they should have Apache headers.
I’m also not 100% what the contents of licenses/third_party/ has to do with the source release. There seems to be a couple of extra non bundled items in there and the items are not mentioned in LICENSE? Are these for a binary convenience release?
Other very minor things:
- best to use an apache email address for signing
- best to use short form of the license and mention the license name in LICENSE [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2. ./src/ports/postgres/cmake/FindPostgreSQL.cmake
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
4. ./cmake/UseLATEX.cmake
5. ./cmake/FindArmadillo.cmake
6. ./src/madpack/yaml/*
7. i.//doc/etc/navtree_hack.js
8. https://github.com/bravegag/eigen-magma/blob/master/doc/eigen_navtree_hacks.js
9. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
10. ./methods/array_ops/src/pg_gp/array_ops.c
11. ./methods/cart/src/pg_gp/dt.c
12. ./methods/kmeans/src/pg_gp/kmeans.c
13. ./src/modules/assoc_rules/*
14. ./src/modules/convex/*
15. ./src/modules/elastic_net/*
16. ./src/ports/postgres/dbconnector/*
17. ./src/utils/*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org