You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> on 2016/05/03 02:43:51 UTC
[VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Commons-VFS2
2.1 rc0)
Binaries are not an official release anyways.
Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code
checked into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed
software. Am I misunderstanding this?
ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has dependencies which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
> schrieb Josh Elser<el...@apache.org>:
>
>> See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
>> the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
>> manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
>
> Which is why it is not built or shipped by default and called sandbox.
> (this was not my idea and before my time but I dont see a reason to
> change this for this release)
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
I was just pointed to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
The way this reads, because we don't push it to Nexus, that's fine.
The other half is that I was (incorrectly) assuming that the src release
was still including the sandbox. This is wrong -- there are no
occurrences of it in release artifacts.
I'm good now :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Bernd Eckenfels <ec...@zusammenkunft.net>.
Am Tue, 03 May 2016 21:47:43 -0400
schrieb Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>:
> See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
> the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
> manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Which is why it is not built or shipped by default and called sandbox.
(this was not my idea and before my time but I dont see a reason to
change this for this release)
Gruss
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Bernd--
See the original point of me starting this thread: it was stated that
the sandbox (might) depend on code which is not licensed in such a
manner that is allowed for ASF projects.
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
> ready for release (beside we do not want to?)
>
> I dont think we should burden such structural and long standing changes
> onto a voluntary release manager given the 2.0 had the same structure.
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
>
>
> Am Tue, 3 May 2016 15:55:00 +0100
> schrieb sebb<se...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
>> with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
>> software comes under AL 2.0.
>>
>> Depending on incompatible software is a different thing.
>> For example, most of Commons depends on Java.
>> That is expected to be provided by the user, not us, so they take the
>> decision on the license.
>>
>>> Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this
>>> code checked into the repository if it depends on
>>> incompatibly-licensed software. Am I misunderstanding this?
>> It depends on the exact license.
>> Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>> and
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
>>
>> But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
>> it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
>>
>>> ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled,
>>>> but we cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it
>>>> has dependencies which are not Apache approved (and potentially
>>>> unfinished suff).
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Bernd Eckenfels <ec...@zusammenkunft.net>.
Hello,
the sandbox works perfectly fine for me. Why do you think it is not
ready for release (beside we do not want to?)
I dont think we should burden such structural and long standing changes
onto a voluntary release manager given the 2.0 had the same structure.
Gruss
Bernd
Am Tue, 3 May 2016 15:55:00 +0100
schrieb sebb <se...@gmail.com>:
> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>
> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
> with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
> software comes under AL 2.0.
>
> Depending on incompatible software is a different thing.
> For example, most of Commons depends on Java.
> That is expected to be provided by the user, not us, so they take the
> decision on the license.
>
> > Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this
> > code checked into the repository if it depends on
> > incompatibly-licensed software. Am I misunderstanding this?
>
> It depends on the exact license.
> Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> and
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
>
> But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
> it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
>
> > ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled,
> >> but we cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it
> >> has dependencies which are not Apache approved (and potentially
> >> unfinished suff).
> >>
> >> Gruss
> >> Bernd
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
>> +1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
>> > member to make sure that we're violating policy.
>
> It would be easy to_ensure_ a violation ... !
>
> Since sandbox is not ready for release, for the purpose of getting a
> VFS release out it should be moved to a branch.
>
lol, oh the missing "not" is pretty good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 May 2016 at 18:04, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>>
>>
>> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
>> with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
>> software comes under AL 2.0.
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply that. Just a passing comment on the 'official
> release' phrase.
>
>>> Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code
>>> checked
>>> into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed software. Am I
>>> misunderstanding this?
>>
>>
>> It depends on the exact license.
>> Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>> and
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
>>
>> But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
>> it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
>
>
> +1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
> member to make sure that we're violating policy.
It would be easy to _ensure_ a violation ... !
Since sandbox is not ready for release, for the purpose of getting a
VFS release out it should be moved to a branch.
>
>>> ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we
>>>> cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has
>>>> dependencies
>>>> which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
sebb wrote:
> On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser<el...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
>
> But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
> with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
> software comes under AL 2.0.
I didn't mean to imply that. Just a passing comment on the 'official
release' phrase.
>> Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code checked
>> into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed software. Am I
>> misunderstanding this?
>
> It depends on the exact license.
> Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> and
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
>
> But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
> it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
+1 along with someone to own this and do the proper diligence as a PMC
member to make sure that we're violating policy.
>> ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we
>>> cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has dependencies
>>> which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Bernd
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VFS] Disallowed dependencies in build? (was Re: [VOTE] Apache
Commons-VFS2 2.1 rc0)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 3 May 2016 at 01:43, Josh Elser <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> Binaries are not an official release anyways.
But that does not mean they can include software that is incompatible
with the AL, because end users expect (and we tell them) that the
software comes under AL 2.0.
Depending on incompatible software is a different thing.
For example, most of Commons depends on Java.
That is expected to be provided by the user, not us, so they take the
decision on the license.
> Even so, that seems like a *very* scary thing to even have this code checked
> into the repository if it depends on incompatibly-licensed software. Am I
> misunderstanding this?
It depends on the exact license.
Some incompatible dependencies are OK as binaries
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
and
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
But given that the sandbox does not appear to be ready to release as
it stands, I would be inclined to move it into a branch.
> ecki@zusammenkunft.net wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Agree, the sandbox profile should be in the site build enabled, but we
>> cannot distribute the binaries as official release since it has dependencies
>> which are not Apache approved (and potentially unfinished suff).
>>
>> Gruss
>> Bernd
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org